Display MoreClassical thermodynamics doesn't recognize something like "quantum information" or "quantum entropy" - just an "information".
Apparently quantum mechanics doesn't fully play with classical law of thermodynamics.
Exactly: 2LoT is about (in the most general sense) information. Classical entropy is one example of this. Information - as stored in a memory - is another. It is beautiful and a very precise explanation of why all the proposed Maxwell's Demons do not work. And not a surprise, becase 2LoT is really just saying that the universe goes from more ordered to less ordered states, which is probabilistically so likely as to be effectively certain.
There is no requirement for anyone to understand this: but anyone who works through the details - and I'll happily argue these - will end up understanding it.
THH
Why crystals form spontaneously during cooling after then? Why massive objects condense from random clouds into a spherical objects?
It's nice to believe in laws but even better is to open an eyes and not to live in illusions.
A portion of this is semantics.
2LOT could also be stated as "from complex to less complex" and / or "Higher degree of information to less information".
A random cloud is very complex while a sphere is quite simple, complexity and information wise. It does seem more "ordered" but that could be interpreted differently in 2LOTD.
A crystal could also be viewed the same way. Less complex.
However, I do agree that there are other areas that are absolutely in contradiction to 2LOTD. Namely evolution. The unbelievable complexity of the human brain, overall nervous system and body (along with the millions of other species variants) is absolutely against 2LOTD. Huge amounts of new information is gained, extreme complexity and all ordered in a system that requires exacting coordination with each complex system. This flies in the face of 2LOTD, with no mechanism theory on what actually drives this ordered, complex increase of information versus the 2LOTD requirement for decomposition.
I only bring this somewhat OT subject up as it does fit 1) "false information" at least controversial 2) shows that in all the various opinions here, it really is not so much as the actual factual substance of the debate, it is the "my interests are with" bias.
I.E. The vast overall tone of the anti-SM crowd is that the "lies and mis-direction" of SM is all caused by big money, big interest and greed. Something that is probably seen to a small extent, but hardly is the driving force in the thousands of physicists around the world. (in my opinion)
This same crowd, may however, completely accept evolution as OK, even though it's foundation if far, far, far less sound than the Standard Model. So much so, that if it was any other field, such as chemistry or Physics, it's lack of basic standard scientific theory standards, by definition would have it laughed out of existence. No predictive, not testable, no driving mechanism, against other laws such as LOTD, etc. etc.
It is only held in such high position because the "alternative is unthinkable".
So my point.... science is driven more to the core, by one's own personal bias more than anything. That bias may be a pet theory. It may be crowd mentality, it may be personal understanding (which could be right or wrong) and yes, it could be greed as well. However, it often is more influenced by these factors than the emotionless, unbiased examining of data and facts.
If so, certain people here would not be making statements similar to "the last 90 years of foolish blindness" and other emotional claims. They would simply stick to the facts and data. Of course, their world view is that statement IS fact, which is hand waiving of course. Others would be more open to other ideas as well, (such as I expect very closed mindedness to the evolution challenge above)
It is all a matter of personal bias. (Not that some are more logical or fact based than others. Normally the degree of personal insult indicates the degree of lack of logic or defendable fact)
PS.... and most will not change their views by verbal discussion from the opposing side! World views seldom change and then usually only from some internal decision.