4.5 Article

Proposed Principles of Maximum Local Entropy Production

Journal

JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY B
Volume 116, Issue 27, Pages 7858-7865

Publisher

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/jp302088y

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Science Foundation [CHE 0847073]
  2. Division Of Chemistry
  3. Direct For Mathematical & Physical Scien [0847073] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Articles have appeared that rely on the application of some form of maximum local entropy production principle (MEPP). This is usually an optimization principle that is supposed to compensate for the lack of structural information and measurements about complex systems, even systems as complex and as little characterized as the whole biosphere or the atmosphere of the Earth or even of less known bodies in the solar system. We select a number of claims from a few well-known papers that advocate this principle and we show that they are in error with the help of simple examples of well-known chemical and physical systems. These erroneous interpretations can be attributed to ignoring well established and verified theoretical results such as (1) entropy does not necessarily increase in nonisolated systems, such as local subsystems; (2) macroscopic systems, as described by classical physics, are in general intrinsically deterministic-there are no choices in their evolution to be selected by using supplementary principles; (3) macroscopic deterministic systems are predictable to the extent to which their state and structure is sufficiently well-known; usually they are not sufficiently known, and probabilistic methods need to be employed for their prediction; and (4) there is no causal relationship between the thermodynamic constraints and the kinetics of reaction systems. In conclusion, any predictions based on MEPP-like principles should not be considered scientifically founded.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available