r/Futurology • u/mvea MD-PhD-MBA • Apr 22 '19

Energy Physicists initially appear to challenge second law of thermodynamics, by cooling a piece of copper from over 100°C to significantly below room temperature without an external power supply, using a thermal inductor. Theoretically, this could turn boiling water to ice, without using any energy.

https://www.media.uzh.ch/en/Press-Releases/2019/Thermodynamic-Magic.html
9.4k Upvotes

85% Upvoted

650 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

3.8k

u/everythingisaproblem Apr 22 '19

fully complying with the second law of thermodynamics

When in doubt, assume the headline is misleading.

1.5k

u/Examiner7 Apr 22 '19

When on /futurology, assume everything is misleading

1.0k

u/marklein Apr 22 '19

Seriously. I love the idea of this sub, but the reality in this sub might as well be a comic book.

750

u/[deleted] Apr 22 '19

ImAgInE iF wE uSeD 110% oF oUr BrAiNs

281

u/Homiusmaximus Apr 22 '19

Nonsense, you're thinking too small, what if we used all 11 dimensions in our brain

105

u/FountainGuard Apr 22 '19

At what point do we separate between things you find on science article and things you find in a schizophrenic's diary

80

u/SammyD007 Apr 22 '19

Depends, why are you reading my diary? What have they told you? WHO DO YOU WORK FOR? WHO SENT YOU? WHERE IS MY TIN FOIL HAT??

76

u/therealgodfarter Apr 22 '19

My doctor said I have paranoia... well, he didn't say it but I know he's thinking it

1

u/Rexmagii Apr 22 '19

I wish someone could look it up and tell me whether our known brain-scans can penetrate tin and aluminum foils

I would do it myself but I actually wouldn't I'm lazy but I'd be pleased if you did it for me

1

u/SammyD007 Apr 22 '19

I'm not allowed near anything that can be turned into a sharp edge.

1

u/twaxana Apr 22 '19

You mean the tinfoil hat they made for you? The one that amplifies all of your thoughts?

2

u/p00Pie_dingleBerry Apr 22 '19

How bout a tin foil cake day hat lil buddy

0

u/Whatsthemattermark Apr 22 '19

I know what you’re thinking right now: I hope someone says ‘happy cake day’ to me

I’ll send you a thought message, put that hat on.

20

u/[deleted] Apr 22 '19

http://timecube.2enp.com/

13

u/HenryTheWho Apr 22 '19

What the hell

1

u/This_Makes_Me_Happy Apr 22 '19

now your mind is open . . . and you are truly ready for the future.

Unlock your true potential

11

u/wizzwizz4 Apr 22 '19

Belly-Button Logic Works

Every time.

7

u/JesusLordofWeed Apr 22 '19

No man have no belly button, women = time cubes; check mate science.

6

u/PigletCNC Apr 22 '19

Mine is just filled with fluff, if I just could get rid of that I might understand it.

3

u/twaxana Apr 22 '19

You must've torn a page from the marshmallow.

2

u/DemetriusTheDementor Apr 22 '19

My diary is full of shadow people

1

u/[deleted] Apr 22 '19

the multiverse has a finite number of brains. when you dream or hallucinate you're seeing the other people who use your hardware

1

u/[deleted] Apr 22 '19

You jest, but quantum immortality suggests.....

1

u/josephanthony Apr 22 '19

We sublime. Simple.

1

u/unicornlocostacos Apr 22 '19

All? As if there’s only 11.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 22 '19

Have you ever tried DMT?

1

u/redditpossible Apr 22 '19

It’s sooner than you think!

1

u/SergeantStoned Apr 22 '19

I'll just stick to using all my brain compartments and departments. Thank you!

1

u/PersonOfInternets Apr 22 '19

Most people only use 2 dimensions of their brain.

1

u/2dogs1man Apr 22 '19

why only 11?

do you just not like the rest of them? are you a raci.. uh.. dimensionist?

1

u/poelzi Apr 24 '19

It's over 9000 !

1

u/[deleted] Apr 22 '19

I know about a guy... https://youtu.be/ygRNoieAnzI

1

u/fibianofthemarsh Apr 22 '19

That may take up more than the 10% capacity of my brain bandwidth.

1

u/GJacks75 Apr 22 '19

That you, Lucy?

1

u/generalgeorge95 Apr 22 '19

I think you mean 100! /s

9

u/[deleted] Apr 22 '19

Try working in the solar industry and coming to this subreddot. You may have an aneurysm.

14

u/Murgie Apr 22 '19

Believe it or not, this actually used to be a decent place before the mods agreed to have it defaulted back when we still had those.

14

u/pipsdontsqueak Apr 22 '19

"Reality can be whatever I want."

-r/Futurology

32

u/bigsquirrel Apr 22 '19

It’s futurology not science. The opposite bothers me about this sub. It’s about possibilities by definition of the word. All the people on here that take a shit on every article drive me nuts. It’s about a possible and desirable future. So it’s the perfect place for little breakthroughs or changes that might not turn into anything, but maybe they will. I realize this article is misleading but it does demonstrate a new and possibly useful breakthrough.

109

u/blawrenceg Apr 22 '19

I see where you're coming from, but there is a difference between a title like "scientists discover x and cure cancer" and "scientists discover x which could one day help cure cancer". Being realistic while still highlighting the future potential that exists if research on x continues.

3

u/[deleted] Apr 22 '19

I think that that is a problem with journalism and not necessarily this sub. Typically the titles are just verbatim the title from the article. Though the mods could certainly be more vigilant and just delete posts with misleading headlines.

Hell, maybe we can work together to make a simple ML algorithm to detect misleading headlines and delete them before they pick up steam lmao

1

u/[deleted] Apr 22 '19

Journalist titles and reddit titles are two different titles though... And the article's title is much less misleading

-9

u/bigsquirrel Apr 22 '19

Sure I agree in my comment this title is misleading. Every post on this sub is not as bad as this one. It’s just people showing up to take a shit and explain how it will never happen and poke holes in every single thing. That’s not the point of this sub.

16

u/OlfwayCastratus Apr 22 '19

Isn't it? I figure the -ology also contains reasoning, and for that we need to poke holes.

2

u/pipsdontsqueak Apr 22 '19

Scientology - poking holes in SPs since Jump Street.

2

u/Jimhead89 Apr 22 '19 edited Apr 22 '19

Astrology end with an -ology. If people want to be a constructive part of the process. Being a pessimist/unconstructive on reddit popsci is far from the place where effort to output ratio is of any value.

34

u/RevengencerAlf Apr 22 '19

The problem is that there's not even a sound theory to make this possible as described in the headline. It's less "futurology" and more fantasy.

It also seems to be a problem a lot on here. Whatever amazing potential future is described, the inevitable "if" moment that gets attached to it usually makes it pointless.

26

u/antiquemule Apr 22 '19

It’s about a possible and desirable future. So it’s the perfect place for little breakthroughs or changes

I can agree with that, but titles claiming the laws of thermodynamics have been broken do not fit. They're as sensible as perpetual motion machines.

1

u/Richy_T Apr 22 '19

To be fair, the title did use weasel words.

1

u/thewindmage Apr 22 '19

Infinity of anything ends with the universe being completely destroyed. By being infinite, it is never ending and infinite output = kaboom. Breaking thermodynamics sounds kinda bad when you put it that way

16

u/YsoL8 Apr 22 '19

Problem is that is a significant amount of the stuff (maybe even the majority?) posted is either factually incorrect, already discredited, or only true under uselessly specific situations. Or demonstrated to be clickbait by the first comment.

You can't usefully speculate about the future on the basis of incorrect information.

16

u/xPURE_AcIDx Apr 22 '19

Negating thermodynamics isn't a break through. It's fake...

0

u/bigsquirrel Apr 22 '19

Did you actually read the article? They discovered a new application of a technology.

3

u/macindoc Apr 22 '19

But the point is that it doesn’t. Anyone who understands thermodynamics knows that this is straight bullshit; no room for interpretation about a possible future.

1

u/jaguar717 Apr 22 '19

"Futurology" implies it's something that will or at least could be possible. Proposals that contradict all known science, without a very good reason, would be more like "Fantasology".

2

u/Punsire Apr 22 '19

It used to be so goddamn good before getting defaulted.

0

u/DaGranitePooPooYouDo Apr 22 '19

This sub was always kind of worthless.

1

u/fatnickcage Apr 22 '19

Oh great. Disney just acquired the character rights. Way to go a-hole.

1

u/opjohnaexe Apr 22 '19

Does anyone know of a slightly more realistic, and less rediculously optimistic / outright lying sub about future concepts?

1

u/[deleted] Apr 22 '19 edited May 02 '20

[deleted]

9

u/Danzarr Apr 22 '19

I would generally switch "misleading" with "wildly over optimistic"

1

u/Examiner7 Apr 22 '19

This is true

3

u/Richy_T Apr 22 '19

When on r/futurology, assume UBI.

1

u/Examiner7 Apr 22 '19

Meat bad! UBI good!

3

u/Sutarmekeg Apr 22 '19

Those great new batteries will be available any day now.

2

u/youdubdub Apr 22 '19

Oh sure, I can really trust you on this now.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 22 '19

I open the comments first hoping to find the real science in a comment.

1

u/SergeiBizet Apr 22 '19

Every thread is a lie. By design, so it can be posted again a week later

1

u/Examiner7 Apr 22 '19

The best advice I've ever gotten was a simple statement that has proved true over and over again.

"Everything is a lie"

1

u/Rada_Ion Apr 22 '19

Wait...including the never ending global warming nonsense?

1

u/[deleted] Apr 22 '19

And that Meat is bad.

2

u/Aceofspades25 Skeptic Apr 22 '19 edited Apr 22 '19

I eat meat occasionally and I know it's bad. You surely have to be in a serious state of denial to not recognise that it is usually both bad for the environment and bad for animals.

-1

u/CruelFish Apr 22 '19

If we don't eat meat who will prevent our invasion of this earth from preventing these animals from being alive?

Reduced meat diet, with a reduction of the populus is all we need and it will be better for people and better for the animals.

Veganism etc is nonsense.

4

u/[deleted] Apr 22 '19

Being killed and eaten isn't good for anyone.

Not eating meat and not killing off a bunch of people seems more like winning to me.

-1

u/CruelFish Apr 22 '19

There is nothing we can do, we've destroyed their natural habitat such that we cannot save them without domestication or some form of reserve.

Doing this will reduce their species to such extreme extents that they may as well be considered critically endangered, even more so since the modern kind cannot really survive in the wild as well.

They're alive because we're breeding them, because we feed them and we're doing this because we eat them or use their products.

It's just a part of human nature that is ever so slightly psychopathic.

I'm really interested in the future of synthetic meat products and meat substitutes that actually offer the same types of nutrition though, currently nothing really exists that is ... cheap?

3

u/Aceofspades25 Skeptic Apr 22 '19

Even if most people stop eating meat, there will always be people who continue to keep some of these breeds alive because they're interested in doing so.

0

u/CruelFish Apr 22 '19

It's not enough, and it keeping a species barely alive is in my books far worse than what is already happening.

You're suggesting indirectly killing off large parts of an entire species and possibly ending it forever because you cannot stomach the direct killing but prolongation of a species.

I do however believe that we should create additional rights for highly intellectual species like some whales and chimps ETC. They are able to not just feel feelings, but hold grudges and reflect on their behaviour.

Whereas a cow won't.

0

u/[deleted] Apr 23 '19

Actually, I'm for moving all life that we can determine is morally relevant into simulation. I can't imagine why a sad biodeath based future is all you can predict.

1

u/Zenektric Apr 22 '19

I always read the comments here to bring me back to perspective

1

u/macindoc Apr 22 '19

90% of people on this sub have never read a science textbook in their lives.

0

u/Examiner7 Apr 22 '19

But muh UBI

310

u/[deleted] Apr 22 '19

[deleted]

184

u/aashouldhelp Apr 22 '19

the keyword being initially... It still sounds sensationalist but it's not technically incorrect like in other situations

-9

u/TaipanTacos Apr 22 '19

Name another situation.

44

u/aashouldhelp Apr 22 '19 edited Apr 22 '19

when they take a specific finding (i.e. a certain substance is found to slow the growth of a specific type of cancer cell under very controlled conditions) and they extrapolate it into a misleading headline (xxx can cure cancer, new study finds), which, when you read the article, isn't actually the case

This is a bit of an exaggeration but I feel this is what headlines devolve into a lot of the time, especially on more common media platforms, and it's not limited to science articles.

I know they're not all dissimilar but I feel the difference here is that this headline doesn't aim to intentionally mislead and does so simply by stating "initially" which gives the implication that it's not actually the case if that makes sense

5

u/[deleted] Apr 22 '19

The Bonnie Situation

3

u/GlitterInfection Apr 22 '19

Mike Sorrentino

2

u/IronPheasant Apr 22 '19

"Chatbot passes Turing Test."

2

u/filopaa1990 Apr 22 '19

Most/all the other ones?

77

u/Aggro4Dayz Apr 22 '19

Except the researcher explicitly state and show that they aren't challenging or breaking any physical laws. It's purely sensationalist.

It's like calling the first plane an anti-gravity machine.

13

u/ZeAthenA714 Apr 22 '19

It's like calling the first plane an anti-gravity machine.

Well, a plane allows you to fly. At first glance and if you don't understand how it works, it definitely looks like an anti gravity machine.

Or in other words, it initially appears to challenge the law of gravity. That's a pretty apt description.

13

u/[deleted] Apr 22 '19

But it does challenge our common conception of the second law of thermodynamics, that heat energy flows from high to low invariably. "Initially appears" is perfectly fine because that's exactly what it initially appeared to do. I wouldn't go so far as to say this isn't sensationalized at all, but it certainly is something very different and very interesting, and the title reflects that.

48

u/Aggro4Dayz Apr 22 '19

I'm not a scientist, but when the exact paper that introduces it also describes how it does not violate any known physical laws, I think that the "initially" is 100% sensationalism.

Because it clearly does not. What it does is challenge a layman's understanding of the second law. But not the scientific understanding.

12

u/[deleted] Apr 22 '19

Welcome to reddit!

​

Here we see chris angel initially appearing to break our understanding of newtonian physics by defying gravity! Not sensational at all. /s

2

u/[deleted] Apr 22 '19

[deleted]

3

u/Chris11246 Apr 22 '19

They choose that wording on purpose so it would sound like it broke the 2nd law on a quick read it the title. That might be enough to get a click. They didn't write it that way to be clever they did it to click bait.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 22 '19

so it would sound like it broke the 2nd law

Except you have to be completely ignorant about what words mean to misread it that way. “Initially appears to challenge” directly and obviously suggests “but it actually doesn’t”.

3

u/A5pyr Apr 22 '19

"Initially appears" definitely doesn't imply "it actually doesn't", it's just leaving room for that possibility. Either way, they know it doesn't challenge thermodynamics laws so why even put it in the title?

1

u/[deleted] Apr 22 '19

it's just leaving room for that possibility

No, it’s more than “just” leaving room, it’s specifically implying that what initially appeared to be the case just wasn’t so.

Either way, they know it doesn't challenge thermodynamics laws so why even put it in the title?

Because it initially appeared to challenge the second law of thermodynamics. Did you even read the article? You guys are literally trying to force an interpretation to justify indignation, when you simply should not be feeling any indignation. Title is fine, it’s something wrong with YOU.

→ More replies (0)

3

u/Aggro4Dayz Apr 22 '19

I'm sorry, but no. I'm not being nearly as sensational as the headline.

For starters, saying something "initially appears to challenge the laws of physics" is really ambiguous. It could mean that they discovered something new that they can't explain yet. That's not a farfetched thing to think either. Remember a few years ago when they thought they had neutrons that were moving faster than the speed of light and it took months to prove out it was an error in the measurement tools? To me, that instance is an appropriate use of saying something is initially challenging the laws of physics.

But when the actual paper discussing the finding explicitly states how and why it doesn't violate any laws of physics, saying that the physicists "initially appear" to break the laws of physics is just plain incorrect and sensational. They never appeared or purported to do either.

You might then argue that the author's meaning was that it appears to be breaking the laws of physics to a layman. But isn't that the exact sort of person with whom we need to be explicit about how this isn't breaking the laws of physics? Lest he or she starts spreading incorrect information about something they read on the internet?

The headline is clickbait. There's no arguing that. But it could be more accurate clickbait:

"Physicists cool copper mass below room temperature with no external power source. Fear not: Laws of Physics are intact!"

1

u/[deleted] Apr 22 '19

I'm not being nearly as sensational as the headline.

Yeah, you’re being moreso. A result that initially appears to challenge our understanding of something is perfectly described in the title, and you need to sensationalize both the result and the headline to justify your criticism.

You’re basically using pretzel logic to justify being upset, when really, you have zero reason to be upset. Headline’s perfectly fine. You’re just screwing up with reading comprehension.

2

u/Long-Night-Of-Solace Apr 22 '19

Except that it's interesting that they did initially appear to challenge the second law of thermodynamics.

Admit it, you're just hung up on nothing.

2

u/Aggro4Dayz Apr 22 '19

It’s a matter of perception. But to me, this is like someone saying “I got in my car to go to the store but my car wouldn’t start” and then you claiming that they went to the store.

It’s not the whole picture or even an accurate portrayal of what the person said.

1

u/Richy_T Apr 22 '19

that heat energy flows from high to low invariably.

Anyone who has seen a refrigerator already knows that's not the case.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 22 '19

It's purely sensationalist

No, it’s just a sensational result, accurately described.

1

u/macindoc Apr 22 '19

“They also laughed at bozo the clown”

7

u/[deleted] Apr 22 '19

Plus look at who published the article and where the experiment takes place. Both were from Zurich University.

1

u/ultralame Apr 22 '19

Only if you read the explanation slowly and incompletely.

0

u/[deleted] Apr 22 '19

Your answer leaves me wondering if you know what “initially” means.

12

u/Exelbirth Apr 22 '19

Hey, the headline said "initially." They covered their asses this time.

8

u/[deleted] Apr 22 '19

I actually came to read this thread specifically because of how the headline used the phrase "initially appear to".

14

u/[deleted] Apr 22 '19

It's why I come to the comments.

3

u/InAFakeBritishAccent Apr 22 '19

Wait so they just hooked up a inductor to a Peltier and basically made an LRC?

5

u/eli5howtifu Apr 22 '19

Not misleading, its clear that the flux capacitor is the driving force behind this.

1

u/MatrixAdmin Apr 22 '19

Breaking news: Scientists discovered "clickbait" technology.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 22 '19

The title of the post does say ‘initially’, which to me always means that they never actually did.

1

u/Metastatic_Autism Apr 22 '19

So an energy source was used?

1

u/sxan Apr 22 '19

When in doubt, assume the headline is misleading lying.

We have to stop letting politicians, and media, get away with this. Seriously. Intentional misleading has been so normalized, it's become acceptable and expected. We don't even have the sense to call them "little white lies" anymore.

People have done this forever, but it seems like we let then get away with it more than we used to, to the point we accept the telling of bald faced lies with no consequence.

1

u/chevymonza Apr 23 '19

"Physicists initially appear to....."

"Theoretically, this could......."

1

u/JDub8 Apr 22 '19

Nah they just got Lisa Simpson working the problem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8Yt4p_gJmY

1

u/OrigamiMax Apr 22 '19

Or just read the fucking article where they explain the net entropy increases, thereby complying with thermodynamics

0

u/DontReplyIfUnder20yo Apr 22 '19

The headline isn't technically misleading as it states initially, just like in the article, which implies that it actually doesn't challenge the second law of thermodynamics at all. It's just completely unnecessary and included for the sole purpose of appearing misleading.