Avinash Marwal, please learn thermodynamics of human organism especially Bolzman theory in order to understand that chaos how complete Entropy is not in living organism as well as in living Nature, but can be in dead organism. However you can enjoy your answer.

The truth is always " in between". If we treat cancer as a way from order to chaos, it is entirely wrong. Cancer is an evolutionary way of adaptation of the living systems to environment (becoming hostile) , started and borrowed from the systems which existed billion years ago and were unicellular. To survive, the system should use chaos as the microstates (attractors) but it canalises its programs (that is information acting against enthropy evolved by long selection for survival) towards these options, chosing (by positive feed-back loops) one of two or many. Do not forget that the canalisation is structured and life is structured (little to do with gas examples). Above I have summarised the views of several great scientists of the past and this coincides with what we see in experiments, particularly if cancer cells are challenged by damage - they easily re-program and adapt for survival. To put the theoretizations on cancer on firm feet, one should keep in mind that immortality of cancer cells is supported by their ability to undergo life-cycles, which should always return the cells to some reproductive (therefore reproducible) order. This is a real BIOLOGY which is not understood by most cancer researchers, who were taught as molecularists but not evolutionists.

Cancer 'chaos" is also displayed as the "aneuploidy paradox". We are trying to disentangle this metaphysics - see attached.

Viral etiology of cancer is proved long ago. Your fantasy concerning "Cancer is an evolutionary way of adaptation of the living systems" only surprises me. Even I don't want to discuss it. Please read following works:

1. Ponizovskiy M.R., (2018), The mechanism of cancer cellular genome disorder and comparison therapeutic effects of modern methods and new method cancer treatment, Journal of Genetic Disorders, v.2(8), 1 – 17.

2. D’Adostino Donna M., Bernardi Paolo, Chieco-Blanchi Luigi, Ciminale Vincenzo, Mitochondria as Functional Targets of Proteins coded by Human Tumor Viruses, in: Mitochondria as Central Regulators of Energy Concervation, Signal Transduction and Cell Death, eds. Woude George F.Vande and Klein George, vol. 94, Academic Press, 2005. p. 87 – 94.

3. Ponisovskiy M.R., (2010), “Cancer metabolism and the Warburg effect as anabolic process outcomes of oncogene operation”, Critical Reviews in Eukaryotic Gene Expression, 20 (4), 325 – 339.

Besides, I recommend to familiarize yourself with famous Prigogine theorem and to learn some thermodynamics in order to understand Entropy=Chaos according Boltzman theory in the articles:

4. Ponisovskiy M.R., (2011), “Driving mechanisms of passive and active transport across cellular membranes as the mechanisms of cell metabolism and development as well as the mechanisms of cellular distance reaction on hormonal expression and the immune response”, Critical Reviews in Eukaryotic Gene Expression, 21 (3), 267 – 290.

5. Ponizovskiy M., (2014), The mechanisms operation of thermodynamic system of a human organism, European Journal of Biophysics, 2 (4), 29 – 37, doi: 10.11648/j.ejb.20140204.11

6. Ponizovskiy M.R., (2018), Genetic mechanisms an open thermodynamic system of an organism in norm and pathology, Journal of Molecular and Genetic Medicine, Volume 12, Issue 2, 1 -15, doi:10.4172/1747- 0862.1000355.

7. Ponizovskiy M.R., (2018), The role solar thermonuclear synthesis in forming earth living organisms and in influencing on human organism, Physics & Astronomy International Journal, 2(5), 425 – 437, doi:10.15406/paij.2018.02.00120.

The so-called "entropy " doesn't exist at all.

During the process of deriving the so-called entropy, in fact, ΔQ/T can not be turned into dQ/T. That is, the so-called "entropy " doesn't exist at all.

The so-called entropy was such a concept that was derived by mistake in history.

It is well known that calculus has a definition,

any theory should follow the same principle of calculus; thermodynamics, of course, is no exception, for there's no other calculus at all, this is common sense.

Based on the definition of calculus, we know:

to the definite integral ∫T f(T)dQ, only when Q=F(T), ∫T f(T)dQ=∫T f(T)dF(T) is meaningful.

As long as Q is not a single-valued function of T, namely, Q=F( T, X, …), then,

∫T f(T)dQ=∫T f(T)dF(T, X, …) is meaningless.

1) Now, on the one hand, we all know that Q is not a single-valued function of T, this alone is enough to determine that the definite integral ∫T f(T)dQ=∫T 1/TdQ is meaningless.

2) On the other hand, In fact, Q=f(P, V, T), then

∫T 1/TdQ = ∫T 1/Tdf(T, V, P)= ∫T dF(T, V, P) is certainly meaningless. ( in ∫T , T is subscript ).

We know that dQ/T is used for the definite integral ∫T 1/TdQ, while ∫T 1/TdQ is meaningless, so, ΔQ/T can not be turned into dQ/T at all.

that is, the so-called "entropy " doesn't exist at all.

.

.

.

Why did the wrong "entropy" appear ?

In summary , this was due to the following two reasons:

1) Physically, people didn't know Q=f(P, V, T).

2) Mathematically, people didn't know AΔB couldn‘t become AdB directely .

If people knew any one of them, the mistake of entropy would not happen in history.

Please read my paper and those answers of the questions related to my paper in my Projects.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/230554936_Entropy_A_concept_that_is_not_a_physical_quantity

I am sorry, but you don't admit the role second law of thermodynamics in advances of progress as physical and chemical sciences as well as biophysical and biochemical sciences how parts of physical and chemical sciences which define development whole biological science including human science. Hence it gave right to consider human organism as open non equilibrium non linear thermodynamic system (see the article Ponizovskiy M., (2014), The mechanisms operation of thermodynamic system of a human organism, European Journal of Biophysics, 2 (4), 29 – 37, doi: 10.11648/j.ejb.20140204.11 ). Besides your interpretation entropy of second law of thermodynamic is fit for thechnical use because it does not consider global theory Boltzman who has given formula explaining global character Entropy as mechanism full disorganisation thermodynamic system leading to chaos. Thus he has given characteristic "chaos" as 100% increase Entropy. Therefore "chaos" as full increase Entropy can not be in living Nature!! The famous Prigogine theorem and Glansdorff - Prigogine theory reflect explanation Entropy causing by Boltzman. Also you did not consider thermodynamic potentials especially characteristic for biochemical sciences "chemical potencials [ µ ] besides Gibbs potential and Helmholtz potential. All of these data including Boltzman theory you can read in following works:

1. Ponisovskiy M.R., (2011), “Driving mechanisms of passive and active transport across cellular membranes as the mechanisms of cell metabolism and development as well as the mechanisms of cellular distance reaction on hormonal expression and the immune response”, Critical Reviews in Eukaryotic Gene Expression, 21 (3), 267 – 290.

2. Ponizovskiy M.R., (2018), Genetic mechanisms an open thermodynamic system of an organism in norm and pathology, Journal of Molecular and Genetic Medicine, Volume 12, Issue 2, 1 -15, doi:10.4172/1747-0862.1000355.

3. Ponizovskiy M.R., (2018), The mechanism of cancer cellular genome disorder and comparison therapeutic effects of modern methods and new method cancer treatment, Journal of Genetic Disorders, v.2(8), 1 – 17.

ROS (when level of ROS is high) changes DNA in chaotic way. In cancer cells, ROS level is high

Your opinion concerning ROS is wrong because ROS is found as in able-bodied tissue as well as in pathologic tissue, and ROS play role in proliferative processes both in norm and pathology, but not changing DNA (see Ponizovskiy M.R., (2013), Biophysical and biochemical transmutation of mitochondrial function in cancer genesis, Biochemistry & Analytical Biochemistry, Volume 2, Issue 3, 1 – 9, doi:10.4172/2161-1009.1000137). Apropos, even destruction some DNAs in cellular cycle does not lead to destruction whole thermodynamic system of an organism, i.e. to death of an organism. But destruction all DNAs of an organism leads to death of thermodynamic system of an organism, i.e. leads to great increase Entropy.

yes, I agree - but please note that I wrote HIGH level of ROS; normal level of ROS is ok, but high level of ROS destroys DNA in chaotic way

The starting point of thermodynamic logic is: 1) opposing perpetual motion. 2) The irreversibility of dynamics. Let's look at how to get Carnot efficiency = 1-T1/T2.

1.1 There are many kinds of type 2 perpetual motors, each of which is a natural phenomenon.

A) Machine A: against the irreversibility of thermodynamics (diffusion, heat conduction, friction, etc) - dynamics;

B) Machine B: Utilizing the Difference of Carnot Efficiency (Reversible Thermodynamics) - Thermodynamics

1.2 A and B belong to different disciplines. There is a parallel relationship between them and there is no logical mutual inevitability.

1.3. Logic of the Second Law of Thermodynamics:

Experience induction, deny that A machine==> B machine can not be manufactured==> All material Kano efficiency: 1-T1/T2.

1.4 The logic of the second law of thermodynamics violates the physical logic that A and B cannot be inferred from each other.

1.5 The second law of thermodynamics elevates the "irreversibility", which is in fact only a kinetic experience.

📷 Detailed discussion can be found in the following figure.

1. The second law of thermodynamics loses the ability of quantitative prediction.

2. Data processing method of law 2 of thermodynamics violates scientific discipline: modifying experimental data to satisfy theory

See the picture for details.

3. The second law of thermodynamics can only be called science if it reaches the same quantitative prediction ability as Newton's second law, otherwise it is pseudoscience.

4.Unfortunately, all the charts of enthalpy and entropy are organized in this way.

Comparison of New and Old Thermodynamics

1. Logic of the Second Law of Thermodynamics: Subjectivism, Logical Jump, Interdisciplinary Argumentation.

2. New thermodynamics pursues universality, two theoretical cornerstones:

2.1 Boltzmann formula: ro=A*exp(-Mgh/RT) - Isotope centrifugal separation experiments show that it is suitable for gases and liquids.

2.2. Hydrostatic equilibrium: applicable to gases and liquids.

3. The second and third sonic virial coefficients of R143a derived from the new thermodynamics are in agreement with the experimental results.

3.1. The third velocity Virial coefficient derived is in agreement with the experimental data, which shows that the theory is still correct when the critical density is reached.

4. See Appendix Pictures and Documents for details.

I am sorry, but you don't understand thermodynamics at all due to comparing second law of thermodynamics with Newton's second law and noting that second law of thermodynamics loses the ability of quantitative prediction. Please learn carefully thermodynamics and then read the article concerning application thermodynamics to medical and biological sciences:

Ponizovskiy M., (2014), The mechanisms operation of thermodynamic system of a human organism, European Journal of Biophysics, 2 (4), 29 – 37, doi: 10.11648/j.ejb.20140204.11.

I asked some teachers in Tsinghua University about thermophysical properties: Is it accurate to use the second law of thermodynamics to calculate the internal energy with an accurate equation of state (or an exact region)? Their answer is no guarantee.

You also need to read my articles and speeches. Thank you!

You don't understand thermodynamics alleging that Boltzman formula is suitable for gases and liquids. One more please learn carefully thermodynamics and then read the article concerning application thermodynamics to medical and biological sciences:

Ponizovskiy M., (2014), The mechanisms operation of thermodynamic system of a human organism, European Journal of Biophysics, 2 (4), 29 – 37, doi: 10.11648/j.ejb.20140204.11.

Generally speaking, Boltzmann formula is applicable to ideal gas in conservative force field. I have consulted a piece of literature on isotope separation, and the isotope separation formula (the application of Boltzmann formula) is applicable to liquids.

It is concluded that Boltzmann formula is applicable to liquids.