Welcome to Gaia! ::

Asurendra's avatar

Dangerous Lunatic

Vannak
What makes you say that?
You can't "decrease the entropy" of anything. Are you sure you understand what entropy is? I think you ought to wander in the direction of Wikipedia.
iDraconequus
Vannak
What makes you say that?
You can't "decrease the entropy" of anything a closed system, which earth is not.
fixed.
Asurendra's avatar

Dangerous Lunatic

Vannak
iDraconequus
Vannak
What makes you say that?
You can't "decrease the entropy" of anything a closed system, which earth is not.
fixed.

Touche, but I was speaking in terms of the universe as a whole, in which the Earth exists.

Now I must ask, because I fail to understand: to what point would there be in decreasing the Earth's entropy?
iDraconequus
Vannak
iDraconequus
Vannak
What makes you say that?
You can't "decrease the entropy" of anything a closed system, which earth is not.
fixed.

Touche, but I was speaking in terms of the universe as a whole, in which the Earth exists.

Now I must ask, because I fail to understand: to what point would there be in decreasing the Earth's entropy?
Well, its all about photons and blackbody radiation. Joule for joule, the entropy of light is directly related to it's wavelength. The sun, being very hot gives off low wavelength/low entropy light. The earth gives off infrared light, long wavelengths / high entropy. (there is an issue with reflected light, though it doesn't change the entropy overall very much. We're talking blackbody radiation here).

This doesn't violate the second law because when the sun loses a photon, it gains the entropy it that unit energy of light carries. However the sun is so much lower in entropy than the earth, that same photon decreases the earth's very high entropy. The earth-sun system is always losing entropy, but the concentration of low entropy is in the sun, which slowly diffuses through out the entire system. If you add up the entropy before and after the earth-sun interaction, it is still lower. However the earth has lost some entropy while the sun has gained entropy, more than the earth lost. The total entropy still acts as you'd expect.
Asurendra's avatar

Dangerous Lunatic

Vannak
Well, its all about photons and blackbody radiation. Joule for joule, the entropy of light is directly related to it's wavelength. The sun, being very hot gives off low wavelength/low entropy light. The earth gives off infrared light, long wavelengths / high entropy. (there is an issue with reflected light, though it doesn't change the entropy overall very much. We're talking blackbody radiation here).

This doesn't violate the second law because when the sun loses a photon, it gains the entropy it that unit energy of light carries. However the sun is so much lower in entropy than the earth, that same photon decreases the earth's very high entropy. The earth-sun system is always losing entropy, but the concentration of low entropy is in the sun, which slowly diffuses through out the entire system. If you add up the entropy before and after the earth-sun interaction, it is still lower. However the earth has lost some entropy while the sun has gained entropy, more than the earth lost. The total entropy still acts as you'd expect.

I think I understand what you're saying.

By "decreasing the Earth's entropy" you're talking about decreasing the amount of energy lost via heat that cannot be used to do work, am I correct? You're advocating increasing the efficiency of the current energy we receive from the Sun, rather than increasing the total amount of energy we directly harness.

If this is what you meant, then I agree with you; increasing the efficiency of the energy we currently use would definitely be a wise course of action. However, we could also augment the benefits of doing so by directly harnessing more energy from the Sun in tandem. If we can generate an energy surplus without negatively impacting our environment, we should do so.
I think Vannak means "calculate the amount of entropy lost due to sunlight in a given region and use that number to figure out the carrying capacity of that region", not "use the act of decreasing entropy via sunlight as a technological tool."
iDraconequus
Vannak
Well, its all about photons and blackbody radiation. Joule for joule, the entropy of light is directly related to it's wavelength. The sun, being very hot gives off low wavelength/low entropy light. The earth gives off infrared light, long wavelengths / high entropy. (there is an issue with reflected light, though it doesn't change the entropy overall very much. We're talking blackbody radiation here).

This doesn't violate the second law because when the sun loses a photon, it gains the entropy it that unit energy of light carries. However the sun is so much lower in entropy than the earth, that same photon decreases the earth's very high entropy. The earth-sun system is always losing entropy, but the concentration of low entropy is in the sun, which slowly diffuses through out the entire system. If you add up the entropy before and after the earth-sun interaction, it is still lower. However the earth has lost some entropy while the sun has gained entropy, more than the earth lost. The total entropy still acts as you'd expect.

I think I understand what you're saying.

By "decreasing the Earth's entropy" you're talking about decreasing the amount of energy lost via heat that cannot be used to do work, am I correct? You're advocating increasing the efficiency of the current energy we receive from the Sun, rather than increasing the total amount of energy we directly harness.

If this is what you meant, then I agree with you; increasing the efficiency of the energy we currently use would definitely be a wise course of action. However, we could also augment the benefits of doing so by directly harnessing more energy from the Sun in tandem. If we can generate an energy surplus without negatively impacting our environment, we should do so.

Well I'm not really advocating anything like that, I'm more just saying if one wishes to calculate the carrying capacity of the earth, they should look at the change in entropy a human puts into the environment as a result of required biological processes. Human biology increases entropy by a certain amount per second. The solar process reduces entropy by a certain amount per second. Divide and you have the maximum number of sustainable human life forms that could possibly inhabit the earth.
Asurendra's avatar

Dangerous Lunatic

Vannak
iDraconequus
Vannak
Well, its all about photons and blackbody radiation. Joule for joule, the entropy of light is directly related to it's wavelength. The sun, being very hot gives off low wavelength/low entropy light. The earth gives off infrared light, long wavelengths / high entropy. (there is an issue with reflected light, though it doesn't change the entropy overall very much. We're talking blackbody radiation here).

This doesn't violate the second law because when the sun loses a photon, it gains the entropy it that unit energy of light carries. However the sun is so much lower in entropy than the earth, that same photon decreases the earth's very high entropy. The earth-sun system is always losing entropy, but the concentration of low entropy is in the sun, which slowly diffuses through out the entire system. If you add up the entropy before and after the earth-sun interaction, it is still lower. However the earth has lost some entropy while the sun has gained entropy, more than the earth lost. The total entropy still acts as you'd expect.

I think I understand what you're saying.

By "decreasing the Earth's entropy" you're talking about decreasing the amount of energy lost via heat that cannot be used to do work, am I correct? You're advocating increasing the efficiency of the current energy we receive from the Sun, rather than increasing the total amount of energy we directly harness.

If this is what you meant, then I agree with you; increasing the efficiency of the energy we currently use would definitely be a wise course of action. However, we could also augment the benefits of doing so by directly harnessing more energy from the Sun in tandem. If we can generate an energy surplus without negatively impacting our environment, we should do so.

Well I'm not really advocating anything like that, I'm more just saying if one wishes to calculate the carrying capacity of the earth, they should look at the change in entropy a human puts into the environment as a result of required biological processes. Human biology increases entropy by a certain amount per second. The solar process reduces entropy by a certain amount per second. Divide and you have the maximum number of sustainable human life forms that could possibly inhabit the earth.

That is overly-complicated and pointless to anyone but a thesis-writer.
iDraconequus
Vannak
iDraconequus
Vannak
Well, its all about photons and blackbody radiation. Joule for joule, the entropy of light is directly related to it's wavelength. The sun, being very hot gives off low wavelength/low entropy light. The earth gives off infrared light, long wavelengths / high entropy. (there is an issue with reflected light, though it doesn't change the entropy overall very much. We're talking blackbody radiation here).

This doesn't violate the second law because when the sun loses a photon, it gains the entropy it that unit energy of light carries. However the sun is so much lower in entropy than the earth, that same photon decreases the earth's very high entropy. The earth-sun system is always losing entropy, but the concentration of low entropy is in the sun, which slowly diffuses through out the entire system. If you add up the entropy before and after the earth-sun interaction, it is still lower. However the earth has lost some entropy while the sun has gained entropy, more than the earth lost. The total entropy still acts as you'd expect.

I think I understand what you're saying.

By "decreasing the Earth's entropy" you're talking about decreasing the amount of energy lost via heat that cannot be used to do work, am I correct? You're advocating increasing the efficiency of the current energy we receive from the Sun, rather than increasing the total amount of energy we directly harness.

If this is what you meant, then I agree with you; increasing the efficiency of the energy we currently use would definitely be a wise course of action. However, we could also augment the benefits of doing so by directly harnessing more energy from the Sun in tandem. If we can generate an energy surplus without negatively impacting our environment, we should do so.

Well I'm not really advocating anything like that, I'm more just saying if one wishes to calculate the carrying capacity of the earth, they should look at the change in entropy a human puts into the environment as a result of required biological processes. Human biology increases entropy by a certain amount per second. The solar process reduces entropy by a certain amount per second. Divide and you have the maximum number of sustainable human life forms that could possibly inhabit the earth.

That is overly-complicated and pointless to anyone but a thesis-writer.
... or maybe to someone who wants to know the carrying capacity of the earth, lol.

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get GCash
Offers
Get Items
More Items
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games