Life on Earth in Violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics

Either the second law of thermodynamics is false or life on Earth did not emerge spontaneously, by an evolutionary process (or both). That is what this article quite convincingly suggests:

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2016/03...ens102725.html
Granville Sewell: The Common Sense Law of Physics

In a recent publication Granville Sewell develops his views and makes an important point at the beginning:

http://www.math.utep.edu/Faculty/sew.../pe_sewell.pdf
Granville Sewell, On "compensating" entropy decreases, PHYSICS ESSAYS 30, 1 (2017): "The idea that "entropy" is a single quantity which measures disorder of all types is widely believed. Of course, you can define a quantity, which I will call "thermal" entropy, which measures randomness (uniformness) in the temperature distribution, and show that in an isolated system this thermal entropy can only increase, as heat diffuses and the temperature distribution becomes more and more uniform. And you can similarly define an "X-entropy" which measures randomness in the distribution of any other diffusing component X and show, using the same equations, that in an isolated system this X-entropy also can only increase as the component X diffuses and the distribution of X becomes more and more uniform. But the idea that there is a total entropy which measures randomness of all types is a myth, and is the source of much confusion."

Correct. Actually the concept of entropy is "not even wrong". If you define the entropy S as a quantity that obeys the equation dS=dQrev/T, you will find that, so defined, the entropy is a STATE FUNCTION FOR AN IDEAL GAS. Clausius was very impressed by this statefunctionness and decided to prove that the entropy (so defined) is a state function for ANY system. So "Entropy is a state function" became a fundamental theorem in thermodynamics. Clausius deduced it from the assumption that any cycle can be disintegrated into small Carnot cycles, and nowadays this deduction remains the only justification of "Entropy is a state function":

http://mutuslab.cs.uwindsor.ca/schur...es/240_l10.pdf
"Carnot Cycles: S is a State Function. Any reversible cycle can be thought of as a collection of Carnot cycles - this approximation becomes exact as cycles become infinitessimal. Entropy change around an individual cycle is zero. Sum of entropy changes over all cycles is zero."

http://ronispc.chem.mcgill.ca/ronis/chem213/hnd8.pdf
"Entropy Changes in Arbitrary Cycles. What if we have a process which occurs in a cycle other than the Carnot cycle, e.g., the cycle depicted in Fig. 3. If entropy is a state function, cyclic integral of dS = 0, no matter what the nature of the cycle. In order to see that this is true, break up the cycle into sub-cycles, each of which is a Carnot cycle, as shown in Fig. 3. If we apply Eq. (7) to each piece, and add the results, we get zero for the sum."

The assumption on which "Entropy is a state function" is based - that any cycle can be subdivided into small Carnot cycles - is almost obviously false.. An isothermal cycle CANNOT be subdivided into small Carnot cycles. A cycle involving the action of conservative forces CANNOT be subdivided into small Carnot cycles.

Conclusion: The belief that the entropy is a state function is totally unjustified. The second law of thermodynamics as expressed in terms of entropy is "not even wrong".

Still the Kelvin-Planck version of the second law is both meaningful and easily falsifiable. Consider, for instance, a parallel-plate capacitor immersed in water. In the following two videos one switches the capacitor on and off and the system can repeatedly lift floating weights:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHNwvfXUYb4
Rise in Liquid Level Between Plates of a Capacitor

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6KAH1JpdPg
Liquid Dielectric Capacitor

Switching the capacitor on and off involves no work done on the system so the energy for the work done BY the system (if it repeatedly lifts floating weights) can only come from the environmental heat, in violation of the second law of thermodynamics.

The second-law-violating effects can be described in a different way. When a constant-charge parallel-plate capacitor is immersed in a liquid dielectric, e.g. water, a mysterious pressure emerges between the plates, pushes them apart and so counteracts their electrostatic attraction:

http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teachin...es/node46.html
"However, in experiments in which a capacitor is submerged in a dielectric liquid the force per unit area exerted by one plate on another is observed to decrease... [...] This apparent paradox can be explained by taking into account the difference in liquid pressure in the field filled space between the plates and the field free region outside the capacitor."

So we have a high pressure between the plates and a lower pressure outside the capacitor - then what if one punches a small hole in one of the plates? There will be an eternal flow through the hole, from inside to outside. We have a SYSTEM IN DYNAMIC EQUILIBRIUM obviously violating the second law of thermodynamics.

If the plates are vertical and only partially immersed, the same mysterious pressure forces the liquid between the plates to rise above the surface of the water pool, as seen in the videos above and in Fig. 1 and Fig. 2 he

http://www.academia.edu/25650739/Flu..._and_stability
I. Brevik, Fluids in electric and magnetic fields: Pressure variation and stability, Can. J . Phys. (1982): "Fig. 1. Two charged condenser plates partly immersed in a dielectric liquid. [...] Fig. 2. The hydrostatic pressure variation from point 1 to point 5 in Fig. 1."

In 2002 I proposed the following device violating the second law of thermodynamics:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002AIPC..643..430V
AIP Conf. Proc. 643, pp. 430-435, Pentcho Valev 2002: "...as two vertical constant-charge capacitor plates partially dip into a pool of a liquid dielectric (e.g. water), the liquid between them rises high above the surface of the rest of the liquid in the pool. Evidently, if one punches a macroscopic hole in one of the plates, nothing could prevent the liquid between the plates from leaking out through the hole and generating an eternal waterfall outside the capacitor. This hypothesis has been discussed on many occasions but so far no serious counter-argument has been raised."

Here is a schematic picture of the "eternal waterfall":

http://energythic.com/usercontent/3/...PU_caphole.gif

In 2004 I tried to explain the molecular mechanism behind the effect:

http://www.gsjournal.net/old/valev/valev2.pdf
Biased Thermal Motion and the Second Law of Thermodynamics (August 12, 2004)

Again: In an electric field, water has a tendency to rise - if there is some weight floating on the surface, it will be lifted:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACDxurDAmyg
Chapter 11.6.2: Force on a liquid dielectric

Since switching the field on and off involves no work done on the system, the system does work for us (lifts floating weights) at the expense of heat absorbed from the surroundings (in violation of the second law of thermodynamics).

The "floating water bridge" is essentially the same phenomenon - water absorbs heat from the surroundings and uses it to "climb out of the beakers":

http://phys.org/news/2007-09-bridge-...h-voltage.html
"When exposed to a high-voltage electric field, water in two beakers climbs out of the beakers and crosses empty space to meet, forming the water bridge. The liquid bridge, hovering in space, appears to the human eye to defy gravity."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhBn1ozht-E
The Floating Water Bridge

Pentcho Valev

Catalysts (enzymes) can obviously violate the second law of thermodynamics. Consider the dissociation-association reaction

A - B + C

which is in equilibrium. Let us assume that the forward reaction

A - B + C

is exothermic while the reverse

B + C - A

is endothermic. We add a catalyst, e.g. a macroscopic catalytic surface, and it starts splitting A efficiently but is unable to get together B and C and join them into A. In other words, the catalytic surface accelerates the forward reaction but fails to accelerate the reverse. This looks realistic - the probability that a B molecule and a C molecule will hit the catalytic center simultaneously, so that the center can combine them, could be vanishingly small. Yet, if this is so, the second law is obviously violated - even at equilibrium, there will be temperature and concentration gradients at the catalytic surface that can in principle be harnessed to do work.

The above scenario is oversimplified - it is assumed that the reverse reaction is not catalyzed at all. This is not necessary. The reverse reaction can be catalyzed as well, but if the catalytic acceleration in one direction is smaller than the catalytic acceleration in the other, the second law is violated:

"Rhenium dissociates hydrogen molecules into atoms better than tungsten does; conversely, tungsten recombines hydrogen atoms back into hydrogen molecules better than rhenium."

Here is more explanation:

http://microver.se/sse-pdf/edgescience_24.pdf
"A small, closed, high temperature cavity contained two metal catalysts (rhenium and tungsten), which were known to dissociate molecular hydrogen (H2) to different degrees (Figure 1). (Rhenium dissociates hydrogen molecules into atoms better than tungsten does; conversely, tungsten recombines hydrogen atoms back into hydrogen molecules better than rhenium.) Because the dissociation reaction (H2 - 2H) is endothermic (absorbs heat), and the recombination reaction (2H - H2) is exothermic (liberates heat), when hydrogen was introduced into the cavity, the rhenium surfaces cooled (up to more than 125 K) relative to the tungsten (Figure 2). Because the hydrogen-metal reactions were ongoing in the sealed cavity, the rhenium stayed cooler than the tungsten indefinitely. This permanent temperature difference - this steady-state nonequilibrium - is expressly forbidden by the second law, not just because the system won’t settle down to a single-temperature equilibrium, but because this steady-state temperature difference can, in principle, be used to drive a heat engine (or produce electricity) solely by converting heat back into work, which is a violation of one of the most fundamental statements of the second law (Kelvin-Planck formulation)."

http://link.springer.com/article/10....701-014-9781-5
"In 2000, a simple, foundational thermodynamic paradox was proposed: a sealed blackbody cavity contains a diatomic gas and a radiometer whose apposing vane surfaces dissociate and recombine the gas to different degrees (A_2 - 2A). As a result of differing desorption rates for A and A_2 , there arise between the vane faces permanent pressure and temperature differences, either of which can be harnessed to perform work, in apparent conflict with the second law of thermodynamics."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duncan%27s_Paradox
"Consider a dimeric gas (A2) that is susceptible to endothermic dissociation or exothermic recombination (A2 - 2A). The gas is housed between two surfaces (S1 and S2), whose chemical reactivities are distinct with respect to the gas. Specifically, let S1 preferentially dissociate dimer A2 and desorb monomer A, while S2 preferentially recombines monomers A and desorbs dimer A2. [...]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...SLTD-Fig1c.jpg

In 2014 Duncan's temperature paradox was experimentally realized, utilizing hydrogen dissociation on high-temperature transition metals (tungsten and rhenium). Ironically, these experiments support the predictions of the paradox and provide laboratory evidence for second law breakdown." [end of quotation]

Clearly, catalysts (enzymes) can violate the second law of thermodynamics by accelerating reversible chemical reactions in one direction but failing to produce the same acceleration in the opposite direction.

Pentcho Valev

This is extremely important so I am repeating it:

http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teachin...es/node46.html
"However, in experiments in which a capacitor is submerged in a dielectric liquid [e.g. water] the force per unit area exerted by one plate on another is observed to decrease... [...] This apparent paradox can be explained by taking into account the difference in liquid pressure in the field filled space between the plates and the field free region outside the capacitor."

So we have a high pressure between the plates and a lower pressure outside the capacitor - then what if one punches a small hole in one of the plates? There will be an ETERNAL FLOW through the hole, from inside (between the plates) to outside. We have a SYSTEM IN DYNAMIC EQUILIBRIUM obviously violating the second law of thermodynamics.

In my view, the pressure that emerges between opposite electric charges dipped in water (and reduces the electrostatic attraction between the charges) will some day produce one of the greatest revolutions ever seen in physics.. This pressure is nonconservative and its appearance in electrostatic systems where only electric forces act by definition is awkward, to say the least. Scientists rarely discuss it and sometimes even call it "mysterious":

http://www.amazon.com/Classical-Elec...iglink21401-20
Wolfgang K. H. Panofsky, Melba Phillips, Classical Electricity and Magnetism, p. 114: "This means that if a system maintained at constant charge is totally surrounded by a dielectric liquid all mechanical forces will drop in the ratio 1/k. A factor 1/k is frequently included in the expression for Coulomb's law to indicate this decrease in force. The physical significance of this reduction of force, which is required by energy considerations, is often somewhat mysterious. It is difficult to see on the basis of a field theory why the interaction between two charges should be dependent upon the nature or condition of the intervening material, and therefore the inclusion of an extra factor 1/k in Coulomb's law lacks a physical explanation." p.115: "Therefore the decrease in force... cannot be explained by electrical forces alone." pp.115-116: "Thus the decrease in force that is experienced between two charges when they are immersed in a dielectric liquid can be understood only by considering the effect of the pressure of the liquid on the charges themselves. In accordance with the philosophy of the action-at-a-distance theory, no change in the purely electrical interaction between the charges takes place."

http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-T.../dp/0763738271
Tai Chow, Introduction to Electromagnetic Theory: A Modern Perspective, p. 267: "Calculations of the forces between charged conductors immersed in a liquid dielectric always show that the force is reduced by the factor K. There is a tendency to think of this as representing a reduction in the electrical forces between the charges on the conductors, as though Coulomb's law for the interaction of two charges should have the dielectric constant included in its denominator. This is incorrect, however. The strictly electric forces between charges on the conductors are not influenced by the presence of the dielectric medium. The medium is polarized, however, and the interaction of the electric field with the polarized medium results in an INCREASED FLUID PRESSURE ON THE CONDUCTORS that reduces the net forces acting on them."

Pentcho Valev

In a post-truth (even post-sanity) world, the scientific community couldn't care less about this announcement which, if correct, would mark the beginning of a major revolution in science:

http://www.azocleantech.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=610
"A graphene battery has been developed that has the potential to convert ambient heat into electric current."

Let us assume that this is just hype, without any scientific value. However there is an academic paper with the same content, and the scientific community couldn't care less about it:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1203.0161
Self-Charged Graphene Battery Harvests Electricity from Thermal Energy of the Environment, Zihan Xu et al: "Moreover, the thermal velocity of ions can be maintained by the external environment, which means it is unlimited. However, little study has been reported on converting the ionic thermal energy into electricity. Here we present a graphene device with asymmetric electrodes configuration to capture such ionic thermal energy and convert it into electricity. [...] To exclude the possibility of chemical reaction, we performed control experiments... [...] In conclusion, we could not find any evidences that support the opinion that the induced voltage came from chemical reaction. The mechanism for electricity generation by graphene in solution is a pure physical process..."

In a further effort to condone the scientific community's lack of any interest in the fundamental principles of science, we assume that publications in arXiv are unreliable and deserve no attention. However there is an academic paper with the same content published in a prestigious journal, and the scientific community couldn't care less about it:

http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip...1063/1.4825269
Electricity generated from ambient heat across a silicon surface, Guoan Tai, Zihan Xu, and Jinsong Liu, Appl. Phys. Lett. 103, 163902 (2013): "We report generation of electricity from the limitless thermal motion of ions across a two-dimensional (2D) silicon (Si) surface at room temperature. [...] ....limitless ambient heat, which is universally present in the form of kinetic energy from molecular, particle, and ion sources, has not yet been reported to generate electricity. [...] This study provides insights into the development of self-charging technologies to harvest energy from ambient heat, and the power output is comparable to several environmental energy harvesting techniques such as ZnO nanogenerator, liquid and gas flow-induced electricity generation across carbon nanotube thin films and graphene, although this remains a challenge to the second law of thermodynamics..."

Pentcho Valev

http://www.sciencealert.com/this-new...its-own-weight
"Scientists have developed a special heat-sensitive polymer that's capable of lifting 1,000 times its own weight and quickly contracting back to its original shape. The new material could eventually be used in everything from medical devices that work according to your body heat, to clothes that automatically shrink to provide a snug fit. The fact that the heat of a human body is enough to get the polymer to react is what makes it such a potentially useful material."

This is not a proof of the violation of the second law of thermodynamics but still the suspicion should be strong: We have a small temperature gradient and a great amount of work produced. Similar polymers can work isothermally (driven by pH-changes) - as I have already shown, in isothermal cycles the second law is almost obviously violated:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PH-sensitive_polymers
"pH sensitive or pH responsive polymers are materials which will respond to the changes in the pH of the surrounding medium by varying their dimensions. Such materials increase its size (swell) or collapse depending on the pH of their environment." x

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JGn2a21FvLM
"Here we see a pH-responsive polyacrylic acid hydrogel contained within an unbound carbon fibre braid. The artificial muscle (McKibben style) actuates when placed in a solution with high pH..." x

http://www.google.com/patents/US5520672
"When the pH is lowered (that is, on raising the chemical potential, μ, of the protons present) at the isothermal condition of 37°C, these matrices can exert forces, f, sufficient to lift weights that are a thousand times their dry weight." x

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...00645-0017.pdf
A. KATCHALSKY, POLYELECTROLYTES AND THEIR BIOLOGICAL INTERACTIONS, p. 15, Figure 4: "Polyacid gel in sodium hydroxide solution: expanded. Polyacid gel in acid solution: contracted; weight is lifted." x

Pentcho Valev