Here is a quote from the second link:
The total entropy of a system and its surroundings always increases for a spontaneous process
This quote applies to a spontaneous process, but not a process that will not occur spontaneously. For example, sodium and potassium ions would not spontaneously segregate on two separated sides of a membrane. However, if this state was induced by enzymatic work, these cations would spontaneously try to desegregate and equilibrate on both sides of the membrane.
You're assuming enzymes appear out of thin air. They don't, they are manufactured, by using energy. This is why it is important to always remember what we mean by a closed system. You have to account for ALL the energy, and once you have done that, you have a proper boundary for measuring entropy. Look at slide 5:
slide 5 said:
The total energy of a system and its surroundings is constant
When enzymes appear out of thin air, the total energy is not conserved and you violate the First Law. This makes your entropy analysis invalid. Anyone can leave out part of a system and claim its entropy increases. I can leave out the gas in my tank and bring the exact same argument that my engine violates the 2nd Law.
slide 5 said:
In any physical or chemical change, the total amount of energy in the universe remains constant, although the form of the energy may change.
And here's another pitfall. You have to be careful not to leave out the
transformations between chemical, mechanical, thermal, electric and all the other ways in which energy can be converted. You also have to remember that all of your predictions will tend to be theoretical, because you are forgetting how many ways that things don't happen ideally. So right off the bat you're losing all the energy contributions from the phenomena you ignored.
wellwisher said:
That is the direction of higher entropy. Segregation is not spontaneous and reflects lowering entropy.
Only you made it that way by bringing enzymes in, as if they are free. They're not; they cost energy to make and use.
Energy will spontaneously flow from higher to lower energy. However, going from ionic equilibrium on both sides of the membrane into cationic segregation is the direction of lower to higher energy. This cannot occur spontaneously, but requires work. In both cases, enzyme work cycles are responsible.
Be careful, they are just lysing chemical bonds. Before jumping to conclusions, you should at least go to some representative enzymatic reaction, and account for the energy changes you believe are free.
When dealing with entropy and energy, the main thing you need to remember is entropy can only increase if there is energy.
And that's why you need a proper diagram of the system you are putting a boundary across, to be sure you haven't left any gains or losses out of the TOTAL that must be conserved under the 1st Law. Because, if you have positive entropy it means you haven't drawn the boundary properly. How many times are we going to go back over this? :wallbang:
This is usually provided by energy going from higher to lower potential.
At some boundary which you avoid. Otherwise you can violate the 1st Law and of course as equally violate the 2nd Law.
By definition, at absolute zero, since there is no heat energy, entropy is defined as zero. As we add energy and the temperature rises the entropy increase is reflected in new degrees of freedom.
Except of course energy has many forms. A dead battery at room temperature, that is charged and allowed to cool down, stores energy, without heat. It's merely in the form of accumulated charge. Similarly, fuel stores chemical energy. Any there are numerous other forms and countless examples. So be careful restricting everything to heat, although it is an important consideration.
My goal with energy and entropy is not quantitative, Rather my goal is qualitative.
This statement is one of your core fallacies. You can't
qualify the 1st or 2nd Law without first
quantifying the total energy, summing it to zero, and then, when you are finished, you will see that the entropy increases. And you have to account for ALL sources and sinks, or your entropy number is bogus - pure invention, nothing more.
I am only interested in either up or down. This up-down direction allows a Swiss Army knife simplification that would not be kosher if the goal was quantitative. With up or down and a little logic we can make some interesting connections. This is a good way to test some basic assumptions of life.
It's a good way to violate the 1st Law on your way to violating the 2nd Law, which appears to be your goal. This is why this kind of thinking is called pseudo science. It appears (to naive lay people - in church, for example) to be true. But it's not true. It's false. Pseudo means false. Pseudo science means false science. All you have proved is that you can convince anyone (especially those seeking the same confirmation) of anything.
An interesting, but very important entropy consideration, that is on the entropy swiss army knife is connected to randomness. Randomness is another aspect of entropy (degrees of freedom), which like all forms of entropy requires energy.
Brownian motion is increased by added energy. The probability distribution does not change, only the rate of random collisions changes. They are not the same. This is another problem with trying to be
qualitative. You need to nail down what you mean by
randomness in a reaction, before you can try to treat it as a producer or consumer of energy. Besides, you have failed to be
qualitative as soon as you ignored the TOTAL sources and sinks in the system you think you are analyzing.
To give an example, say we started with a perfect diamond, which any girl would love to have.
Geez.
You can wait and watch, but nothing random will spontaneously happen to the internal structure of the diamond.
If that were true, a diamond would be at absolute zero, so no, the atoms are shaking. They have kinetic energy, and you can prove this simply be raising and lowering it by heating or cooling the diamond.
The reason is the C-C bonds are strong and the amount of energy needed to change the status quo is much higher than found at ambient conditions.
We haven't even begin to speak about bond energy, which fundamental is you pretend to apply the 1st and 2nd Law to a chmeical reaction.
I notice we left biological thermodynamics in the dust, back at slide 1 or 2. Here you want to give a
qualitative but not quantitative explanation for a crystal lattice, which is going to lead to a false conclusion, because you are doing this to avoide the 1st and 2nd Laws of thermodynamics. Pseudoscience.
Random will lack the energy.
Nope. Au contraire. Motion and energy are intimately related. Randomness speaks to the probability of something you define, such as the odds that particle A collides with particle B. All you're doing here is raking probability theory over the same coals you raked thermodynamics over. Just as your failure to use a proper boundary in thermo, her you are not bounding what you mean by a process. You need to define what processes are taking place. Otherwise, you yourself are the randomness, nothing more.
We may need to heat to 2000C to start getting enough energy for a tiny amount of random to begin.
Random doesn't have an "amount" because it's an adjective, not a noun. just as you can have three socks or green socks, but not three green, you can have random or particles or massive particles, but you can't have massive random. This again speaks to your errors in
qualitative not quantitative, although here you are in reverse, trying to assign quantity to "random", which is a quality. Pseudoscience.
Say we start with water vapor or steam. The entropy and the randomness can be modeled with statistical mechanics.
But you can't do that qualitatively. Besides, you aren't even attempting to qualify what kind of process you're talking about.
If we take away heat, we will take away some of the energy that is needed for entropy and randomness.
No, the collisions will continue to occur randomly. You have only reduced the number of undefined time-dependent processes per second. So what?
If remove energy all the way to ice, then the only randomness that might be left will be built into the ice (defects).
What? That's crazy. The final position of each molecule in the crystal is what's randomized. Here you go again zoning out with
qualitative not quantitative
. You are jumping to conclusions by skipping the science.
But all dynamic randomness will be gone. It lacks the energy to be random in a dynamic sense.
Hopefully you now understand why this statement is false.
Meaning:
I can tweak anything, because I reject science, even though I pretend to apply it, as an actor in a movie imitating the words of a scientist, but only according to a script, and without "doing any work" as you might say. (It's very anti-entropic).
So far all you have proved is that you know how to generate pseudoscience.
So? :shrug:
Let's talk about cell entropy, at some elementary level. I'll come back later and see if I can "tweak" your brain!