Skip to main content

Thermodynamics 3 - The Demon

 It's relatively rare that physicists indulge in a spot of whimsy. They are, on the whole, rather literal people - which is not to say unimaginative. Most modern physics is so imaginative it is hard to believe it is connected to the real world. But it is rarely whimsical. However, one rare step into the field, far eclipsing Schrödinger's unfortunate mangy moggy, is the strange case of Maxwell's demon, and this imaginary character's threat to the second law of thermodynamics. This is the third and final post on the subject, inspired by my book Dice World.

Let's start with the split box we met in the previous post. The door in the middle has been open for  a while and entropy has risen as the gasses on either side go from being hot and cold respectively to a mix of the two. But now enter the demon. He is an extremely small creature, so small that he can see the individual molecules of gas passing back and forth in the box. And he has such a high metabolism that he can respond to the different molecules one by one as they pass by. He is in charge of a trap door in the divider that splits the box in half, a special trap door that it takes no energy to open and close. As a molecule approaches the (closed) door our demon takes a look at it. If the molecule is moving left to right and it’s fast, he opens the trap door and lets it through. If it’s going slow he leaves the trap door shut. Similarly, if a molecule is moving right to left and it’s slow, he opens the trap door. Fast molecules from right to left don’t get through.

After a while, our demon will have many more fast molecules in the right-hand half of the box than in the left-hand half. He will have started with a mixed gas with a middling temperature throughout the box and will have ended up with cold gas in the left section and hot gas in the right. He has reduced the entropy, because the gas molecules are now more ordered than they were before, the reverse of the original action of opening the partition and letting them mix. But assuming he really can open and close the trap door with no energy used, then he really is a demon. He has defeated the second law of thermodynamics. Not through some statistical fluke, but systematically and reliably.

Ever since the demon's introduction by the great James Clark Maxwell (though it was Lord Kelvin who called the creature a demon), there has been a debate about what's wrong with this model of the world. It surely can't be allowed. The chances are that it comes down to a failure in the simplification that always occurs when we build a scientific model of reality. Sometimes that simplification is very obvious. I recently saw a paper addressing the likelihood of getting a cat into a superposed state and it began by assuming the cat was a sphere of water. Can you spot the simplification?

With Maxwell's demon we have a few potential issues. One is whether we can have a door that can be opened and closed without putting energy into the system, which may be enough to account for the very small increment in entropy every time a molecule is switched by the demon. Another is that the demon would have to make a measurement of the incoming molecules to decide if they were fast or slow. That act would surely involve some exertion of energy? Again, very little is required to balance out the increase in entropy of a single molecule's position. But cunning scientists have found ways around these issues.

There is a more mind-boggling suggestion. Apparently, while storing information does not require energy, erasing information does. And it is suggested that with each measurement the demon has to adjust its ideas of what 'fast' and 'slow' are, which means that each molecule that passes by will add to the demon's memory store. Arguably, however much storage the demon has, to keep going with the process it will eventually have to delete information to make room for new stuff - and there goes the energy.

If you think that argument is tenuous, it is. The demon may well still be off the hook. But whatever the outcome, it still makes a fascinating way to think a little more about this most significant of physical laws.


Popular posts from this blog

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's recent gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some ex

Which idiot came up with percentage-based gradient signs

Rant warning: the contents of this post could sound like something produced by UKIP. I wish to make it clear that I do not in any way support or endorse that political party. In fact it gives me the creeps. Once upon a time, the signs for a steep hill on British roads displayed the gradient in a simple, easy-to-understand form. If the hill went up, say, one yard for every three yards forward it said '1 in 3'. Then some bureaucrat came along and decided that it would be a good idea to state the slope as a percentage. So now the sign for (say) a 1 in 10 slope says 10% (I think). That 'I think' is because the percentage-based slope is so unnatural. There are two ways we conventionally measure slopes. Either on X/Y coordiates (as in 1 in 4) or using degrees - say at a 15° angle. We don't measure them in percentages. It's easy to visualize a 1 in 3 slope, or a 30 degree angle. Much less obvious what a 33.333 recurring percent slope is. And what's a 100% slope