The second law of thermodynamics fears experimental verification under extreme conditions, while relativity welcomes it.
Extreme conditions often validate the correctness of physical theories, while general relativity favors black holes, neutron stars, and large-scale experimental data in the universe. All of these prove the correctness of general relativity, and quantum mechanics is no exception.
The second law of thermodynamics favors simple, non quantitative empirical phenomena. Diffusion, heat conduction, frictional heat generation, rolling dice. High pressure, critical point, low-temperature thermal properties, the second law of thermodynamics, and experiments do not comply. Scientists find many reasons: due to fluctuations, uncertainty, hydrogen bonding, and biased data fitting. Science has developed for hundreds of years, and the technical problems of measurement and data processing have long been solved.
3. Compare the second law of thermodynamics with general relativity. The second law of thermodynamics requires theoretical and experimental agreement under any extreme conditions for this theory to hold true.
Dear Bo Miao
That's an interesting perspective! The second law of thermodynamics, which states that entropy in an isolated system tends to increase over time, can be challenging to verify under extreme conditions. This is because at very small scales or in extremely high-energy environments (like black holes or quantum systems), the behaviour of entropy can be influenced by factors that are hard to measure directly. In some cases, such as near absolute zero, the typical increase in entropy may be hard to observe due to quantum effects or limitations in experimental precision.
On the other hand, special and general relativity have been extensively tested in extreme conditions, such as near black holes, during high-speed particle collisions, and with precise instruments like GPS satellites.
The predictions of relativity have been verified in a wide range of scenarios, making it one of the most experimentally supported theories in physics.
It’s intriguing how both these fundamental laws of physics interact with the limits of experimental verification!
Thanks for your time.
The comparison drawn between the second law of thermodynamics and general relativity oversimplifies both the strengths and limitations of these foundational theories. While general relativity has indeed been validated under extreme conditions, such as near black holes, neutron stars, and through gravitational wave detection, it owes this success to its precise mathematical structure rooted in differential geometry and tensor calculus. By contrast, the second law of thermodynamics emerges from statistical reasoning and describes tendencies in aggregate behavior, not exact trajectories. It is incorrect to say the second law “fears” extreme verification. Rather, its classical form becomes insufficient in regimes dominated by quantum effects, critical phenomena, or strong field fluctuations. In these settings, statistical mechanics has developed powerful generalizations: fluctuation theorems, quantum entropy measures, and non-equilibrium thermodynamics. The assertion that complex systems invalidate the second law due to “hydrogen bonding” or “data bias” misrepresents modern science. Fluctuations and emergent interactions are not obfuscations—they are the essence of why new models are needed. No physical theory is immune to misapplication. The second law remains robust when applied correctly, and it continues to evolve through deepening theoretical insight and experimental sophistication. Ultimately, both general relativity and the second law exemplify scientific resilience. One is a geometric law governing the fabric of spacetime; the other, a statistical law governing the arrow of time. Each succeeds on its own terms and under its own domain, adapting not ''retreating in the face of challenge."
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Mathematics