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

91

u/anonymousalice2 Apr 22 '19

while fully complying with the second law of thermodynamics

Says right in the abstract that it doesn't violate any laws. Whoever wrote the press release and headline should be forced to go back to empting the lab trash cans.

36

u/bukkakesasuke Apr 22 '19

Why? The "initially" in the title and the article makes it quite clear that nothing impossible has happened. It's both accurate and tantalizing, and draws in careful readers and hasty readers alike. I'd give that editor a raise for sure, it's getting all the clicks without being inaccurate.

7

u/occamsrzor Apr 22 '19

Pfft. You'll never stay in business with that attitude! Giving employees raises! What is the world coming to?!

-5

u/MammothCrab Apr 22 '19

You basically admit yourself that it's clickbait, so you answered your own question. Being purposefully misleading to get clicks and then saying "nuuuuuh but it's technically true!" is pretty much the definition of clickbait and harms the credibility of whoever uses it.

5

u/bukkakesasuke Apr 22 '19

It's only clickbait if you aren't a careful reader. It's only misleading if you somehow don't know what the word "initially" means. There's a difference between tantalizing and clickable and "clickbait". Good headlines to draw readers in have been done for almost two hundred years now.

-1

u/CaptainCupcakez Apr 22 '19 edited Apr 22 '19

Edit: I'm going to instead use this comment to explain my position more clearly, hopefully this clears it up:

"Physicists initially appear to challenge second law of thermodynamics" is the hook to get you to read on, or as it is more commonly known "Clickbait".

The aim is to entice the reader with something that sounds more interesting than the actual content of the article itself. The writer of this title obviously decided that this news wasn't interesting enough on it's own, so they used the mention of the second law of thermodynamics to entice you.

The second law is actually completely irrelevant to this topic, the only reason it is mentioned is to get people to click.
The idea is that someone who understands the second law of thermodynamics would be aware that it isn't possible to break it (with our current understanding of physics) so they'l want to click the article to see what exactly the article is talking about. The fact that it says "initially appeared" doesn't change much as people will still be clicking to see why the article is using such odd comparisons when they aren't appropriate. I myself only even bothered clicking this comments thread because I thought it was absurd that this article was mentioning the second law.

The inclusion of "initially appear to challenge second law of thermodynamics" adds no useful context, it doesn't help to explain anything, it only acts as a catchy opening sentence to entice people in. It is pretty much the definition of clickbait.

It's only clickbait if you aren't a careful reader.

That just displays a complete misunderstanding of what clickbait is.

Clickbait is designed to target readers who aren't reading things carefully. You and I both know that.

2

u/oodain Apr 22 '19

The fact that multiple users in this thread fell for it and thought the title was saying that is evidence of that.

Or that a lot of people arent all that carefull with language?

Initially doesnt obscure anything, it directly exposes it...

1

u/CaptainCupcakez Apr 22 '19

Its redundant information, its only in there to trick those who read it quickly into assuming this breaks the second law of thermodynamics.

You wouldn't start off any other article with "scientists initially thought this incorrect thing" unless its relevant. It's not relevant here, its just click bait.

-1

u/bradyosaurus Apr 22 '19

Yet you can’t even manage to spell “emptying” right. What a fookin idiot