Please reframe your example "store of potential energy in a hot or high-pressure volume of gas, that you can use to do work by releasing it into the environment" to make sense in the above context. — Sir Philo Sophia
entropy of that entire system (volume and its surrounding environment together) increases. — Pfhorrest
I can much more follow your spring example than gas. So, I'll reply to that one in more detail. However, can you please explain to me exactly where you are proposing that external heat energy transferred from outside is stored in an ideal gas? As I point out, I only see the gas' KE increasing w/ no way to store PE, and even if it could (e.g., molecules attract somehow) I figure any PE would increase would decrease the gas' entropy. So, please tell me exactly how the gas gains PE w/ injected heat energy. thx.My original example was considering the volume of gas, and probably some additional equipment, apart from its environment. Pumping gas into, or heating up the gas in, the volume, relative to the surrounding environment, increases the potential energy there — Pfhorrest
Forming chemical bonds (making sugar out of CO2 and water using photosynthesis, for example) also both increases local entropy and stores potential energy. — Pfhorrest
If you read my comments above to apokrisis you'll I implicitly agree with that, esp. for local avoidance of PLA. However, globally, I'm saying excess PE is what enables getting past canyons where there are no entropy gradients to exploit for work. It is really an obvious point when you think about it. When you get up and walk from here to there you are not primarily exploiting any entropy gradients you are burning chem-bonds PE and converting to KE b/c no entropy gradients to exploit. Now, if you want to jump off a cliff to get KE w/o burning any of your PE, you can do that too!And under my own theory, things that don't technically increase the potential energy of the living system, but just reduce its local entropy, still count. — Pfhorrest
but because it's now out of equilibrium with its environment, that still creates a stored energy gradient that can be used to do work, as gas from the environment rushes back into the volume. — Pfhorrest
it has a lower-energy state it will try to get to, which we can use to make it do work. — Pfhorrest
isn't that another way of saying that the mass of the system stayed the same, thus no PE change but there was an entropy change, so PE not always tied to entropy, which is what I'm getting at? — Sir Philo Sophia
both increases local entropy and stores potential energy.
— Pfhorrest
sure, but there are just as many ways to increase PE while decreasing entropy — Sir Philo Sophia
I'm saying excess PE is what enables getting past canyons where there are no entropy gradients to exploit for work. — Sir Philo Sophia
However, is that really defined as PE b/c all the hi gas pressure you are calling PE is all from the molecules KE. In physic PE c an have no motion, so that is why I never can understand what you mean by gas having PE to do thermodynamics work. — Sir Philo Sophia
Entropy is degree of non-random spreading throughout all possible micro-states. nothing to do w/ moving to "a lower-energy state". — Sir Philo Sophia
So wherever you have something at a higher energy state than it possibly could be, with some potential for its energy to be dissipated somewhere else that’s presently at lower energy, you have a low-entropy condition. — Pfhorrest
Glad to see you responding to feedback so positively! That’s a refreshing change for this forum. — Pfhorrest
In any case, if you look at a fluid on the level of a fluid rather than as an ensemble of particles, compression is an increase in potential energy, just like compressing a spring is. You can look at a lower level and see it as an increase in kinetic energy instead, but you can always do that for any potential energy. — Pfhorrest
Under my below definitions, for example, a virus is alive. So, if you do not regard a virus as a living being then you have to point out exactly where/how my definition is flawed, and argue why a virus is inanimate matter.
no. these are called best working definitions, which have verifiable consequences when combined with broader theories and observations.Your hypothesis is "A virus fits the correct definition of 'alive'". But this can only be confirmed or falsified if we already know the correct definition. — Daemon
yes, and that is where counter-examples or logical flaws are made, esp. in the nature and implications of the definition if it were assumed to be true. Apparently, you are not a good philosopher, and/or have little knowledge on the subject. thanks for trying. best wishes....This is a philosophy forum. — Daemon
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.