Reviews from Amazon

Into the Cool

You might not think of thermodynamics as the most interesting of subjects, but if you read Into the Cool then perhaps you'll change your mind. In it Eric D. Scheider and Dorion Sagan show how non-equilibrium thermodynamics can be applied to a wide variety of situations. Starting from the idea that 'nature abhors a gradient', they show how such thermodynamic gradients lead to systems organising themselves to use the energy available. I'm usually pretty skeptical of one-size-fits-all theories, but the application of this idea to the origin and evolution of life, to trees and forests, to human health, and to cities and the world economy, did seem pretty convincing.

Unfortunately the book is let down by its first few chapters. If these had been an introduction to various ideas in thermodynamics, such as the link between information and thermodynamics, then this would have opened the book up to a wide readership (this is a non-technical work). Instead the authors seem to be trying to distance themselves from such ideas, and do so with a rather strange style of writing. Hence I would recommend that before you read this book you read other popular science works dealing with thermodynamic ideas, so that you can put the ideas of this work into context. If you do so then I think you will find much of interest in this book.

Amazon.com info

Hardcover 378 pages
ISBN: 0226739368
Salesrank: 239018
Weight:1.7 lbs

Published: 2005 University Of Chicago Press

Amazon price $26.02

Marketplace:New from $23.07:Used from $6.99

Buy from Amazon.com

Amazon.co.uk info

Hardcover 378 pages
ISBN: 0226739368
Salesrank: 539756
Weight:1.7 lbs

Published: 2005 Chicago University Press

Amazon price £16.62

Marketplace:New from £14.67:Used from £3.84

Buy from Amazon.co.uk

Amazon.ca info

Hardcover 378 pages
ISBN: 0226739368
Salesrank: 174552
Weight:1.7 lbs

Published: 2005 University Of Chicago Press

Amazon price CDN$ 22.35

Marketplace:New from CDN$ 22.35:Used from CDN$ 30.07

Buy from Amazon.ca

Product Description
Scientists, theologians, and philosophers have all sought to answer the questions of why we are here and where we are going. Finding this natural basis of life has proved elusive, but in the eloquent and creative Into the Cool, Eric D. Schneider and Dorion Sagan look for answers in a surprising place: the second law of thermodynamics. This second law refers to energy's inevitable tendency to change from being concentrated in one place to becoming spread out over time. In this scientific tour de force, Schneider and Sagan show how the second law is behind evolution, ecology,economics, and even life's origin. Working from the precept that "nature abhors a gradient," Into the Cool details how complex systems emerge, enlarge, and reproduce in a world tending toward disorder. From hurricanes here to life on other worlds, from human evolution to the systems humans have created, this pervasive pull toward equilibrium governs life at its molecular base and at its peak in the elaborate structures of living complex systems. Schneider and Sagan organize their argument in a highly accessible manner, moving from descriptions of the basic physics behind energy flow to the organization of complex systems to the role of energy in life to the final section, which applies their concept of energy flow to politics, economics, and even human health. A book that needs to be grappled with by all those who wonder at the organizing principles of existence, Into the Cool will appeal to both humanists and scientists. If Charles Darwin shook the world by showing the common ancestry of all life, so Into the Cool has a similar power to disturb—and delight—by showing the common roots in energy flow of all complex, organized, and naturally functioning systems. “Whether one is considering the difference between heat and cold or between inflated prices and market values, Schneider and Sagan argue, we can apply insights from thermodynamics and entropy to understand how systems tend toward equilibrium. The result is an impressive work that ranges across disciplinary boundaries and draws from disparate literatures without blinking.”—Publishers Weekly (20050502)

Product Description

Scientists, theologians, and philosophers have all sought to answer the questions of why we are here and where we are going. Finding this natural basis of life has proved elusive, but in the eloquent and creative Into the Cool, Eric D. Schneider and Dorion Sagan look for answers in a surprising place: the second law of thermodynamics. This second law refers to energy's inevitable tendency to change from being concentrated in one place to becoming spread out over time. In this scientific tour de force, Schneider and Sagan show how the second law is behind evolution, ecology,economics, and even life's origin.

Working from the precept that "nature abhors a gradient," Into the Cool details how complex systems emerge, enlarge, and reproduce in a world tending toward disorder. From hurricanes here to life on other worlds, from human evolution to the systems humans have created, this pervasive pull toward equilibrium governs life at its molecular base and at its peak in the elaborate structures of living complex systems. Schneider and Sagan organize their argument in a highly accessible manner, moving from descriptions of the basic physics behind energy flow to the organization of complex systems to the role of energy in life to the final section, which applies their concept of energy flow to politics, economics, and even human health.

A book that needs to be grappled with by all those who wonder at the organizing principles of existence, Into the Cool will appeal to both humanists and scientists. If Charles Darwin shook the world by showing the common ancestry of all life, so Into the Cool has a similar power to disturb—and delight—by showing the common roots in energy flow of all complex, organized, and naturally functioning systems.

“Whether one is considering the difference between heat and cold or between inflated prices and market values, Schneider and Sagan argue, we can apply insights from thermodynamics and entropy to understand how systems tend toward equilibrium. The result is an impressive work that ranges across disciplinary boundaries and draws from disparate literatures without blinking.”—Publishers Weekly

(20050502)

Disgraceful *
This book is an utter disgrace. The authors carry on as though they have discovered some huge ground breaking insight or idea. Amidst all the stilted writing, and errors in logic and fact there is a ground breaking insight here, but the problem is that it is not theirs. The idea that world acts to minimize or 'destroy" gradients (gradients of potentials or non-equilibrium distributions of energy) at the fastest rate it can (one idea), and that this provides an understanding as to why in apparent contradiction to the popular conception of the second law of thermodynamics (the entropy law , sometimes 'the law of disorder") the world seems to produce as much dynamic order as it can, including the explosion and development of life itself, was 'discovered' and elaborated by Rod Swenson, who with his colleagues beginning in 1988, as the authors must have known, published the elegant reasoning, evidence and results more than two decades ago. At that time Schrodinger following Bertalanffy, and then popularized by Prigogine (as ''dissipative structures') had shown that life like a flame and other dynamically ordered flow structures despite Boltzmann's view that they were 'infinitely improbable", were permitted to exist as long as they produced enough 'entropy' (minimized or 'fed off' of energy gradients) at a sufficient rate to satisfy the balance equation of the second law. The question remained, however, as to why in contrast to the idea of the improbability of such states there was instead as evidenced by the manifestation of life itsellf and in non-living systems like the classic Benard cell, tornadoes, or dust devils the opportunistic production of order not improbably but with a 'probabililty of one' (as Swenson with colleague Michael Turvey put it). Swenson showed that the answer started with the answer to a question the second law never asked. The second law said that gradients or potentials would be spontaneously minimized (or 'destroyed') but said nothing about which paths out of available paths a system would take to do this. With an elegant series of studies and examples Swenson and colleagues (e.g., the now well-cited 'cabin in the woods') showed it was the fastest path given the constraints and stated this as the "Law of Maximum Entropy Production" (or MEP or LMEP) as follows "A system will select the path or assemblage of paths out of available paths that minimizes the potential or maximizes the entropy at the fastest rate given the constraints" Because the transformation from disorder to order (as in the proliferation of life or in the creation of a tornado or Benard cell) he further pointed out always increases the rate at which potentials are minimized (by virtue of the balance equation of the second law) the world can be expected to produce as miuch dynamic order as it can whenever it gets the chance. With this the problem left behind by Schrodinger, Bertalanffy and Prigogine was answered, and the implications for planetary evolution, including cultural evolution, economics and the like are huge. "(E)volution on planet Earth," wrote Swenson in 1989, in a general statement "can be seen as an epistemic process by which the global system as a whole learns to degrade the cosmic gradient at the fastest possible rate given the constraints" If the authors had wished to add to these ideas with a popular book and additional pedagogical examples of these principles rather than trying to claim that in some sense they 'discovered' them they might have been able to do a service, but instead as it is this is a shameful piece of 'work' if you want to call it that, shallow and misleading in the worst possible way. How it got published is hard to say. What can we expect next from the authors? That they have discovered relativity theory without telling us of course that they 'discovered' it by reading Einstein? (on a constructive note, the original papers and ideas are easy enough for anyone to find, probably mostly for free (e.g., search "Swenson and entropy"), or for a somewhat technical overview see "Conceptual Investigation of the Entropy Principle for Identification of Directives for Creation, Existence and Total Destruction of Order", S. P. Mahulikar et al (2004) in the physic journal Physica. Scripta (search "Conceptual Investigation of the Entropy").

Disgraceful *

This book is an utter disgrace. The authors carry on as though they have discovered some huge ground breaking insight or idea. Amidst all the stilted writing, and errors in logic and fact there is a ground breaking insight here, but the problem is that it is not theirs. The idea that world acts to minimize or 'destroy" gradients (gradients of potentials or non-equilibrium distributions of energy) at the fastest rate it can (one idea), and that this provides an understanding as to why in apparent contradiction to the popular conception of the second law of thermodynamics (the entropy law , sometimes 'the law of disorder") the world seems to produce as much dynamic order as it can, including the explosion and development of life itself, was 'discovered' and elaborated by Rod Swenson, who with his colleagues beginning in 1988, as the authors must have known, published the elegant reasoning, evidence and results more than two decades ago.

At that time Schrodinger following Bertalanffy, and then popularized by Prigogine (as ''dissipative structures') had shown that life like a flame and other dynamically ordered flow structures despite Boltzmann's view that they were 'infinitely improbable", were permitted to exist as long as they produced enough 'entropy' (minimized or 'fed off' of energy gradients) at a sufficient rate to satisfy the balance equation of the second law. The question remained, however, as to why in contrast to the idea of the improbability of such states there was instead as evidenced by the manifestation of life itsellf and in non-living systems like the classic Benard cell, tornadoes, or dust devils the opportunistic production of order not improbably but with a 'probabililty of one' (as Swenson with colleague Michael Turvey put it). Swenson showed that the answer started with the answer to a question the second law never asked. The second law said that gradients or potentials would be spontaneously minimized (or 'destroyed') but said nothing about which paths out of available paths a system would take to do this. With an elegant series of studies and examples Swenson and colleagues (e.g., the now well-cited 'cabin in the woods') showed it was the fastest path given the constraints and stated this as the "Law of Maximum Entropy Production" (or MEP or LMEP) as follows

"A system will select the path or assemblage of paths out of available paths that minimizes the potential or maximizes the entropy at the fastest rate given the constraints"

Because the transformation from disorder to order (as in the proliferation of life or in the creation of a tornado or Benard cell) he further pointed out always increases the rate at which potentials are minimized (by virtue of the balance equation of the second law) the world can be expected to produce as miuch dynamic order as it can whenever it gets the chance. With this the problem left behind by Schrodinger, Bertalanffy and Prigogine was answered, and the implications for planetary evolution, including cultural evolution, economics and the like are huge.

"(E)volution on planet Earth," wrote Swenson in 1989, in a general statement "can be seen as an epistemic process by which the global system as a whole learns to degrade the cosmic gradient at the fastest possible rate given the constraints"

If the authors had wished to add to these ideas with a popular book and additional pedagogical examples of these principles rather than trying to claim that in some sense they 'discovered' them they might have been able to do a service, but instead as it is this is a shameful piece of 'work' if you want to call it that, shallow and misleading in the worst possible way. How it got published is hard to say. What can we expect next from the authors? That they have discovered relativity theory without telling us of course that they 'discovered' it by reading Einstein?

(on a constructive note, the original papers and ideas are easy enough for anyone to find, probably mostly for free (e.g., search "Swenson and entropy"), or for a somewhat technical overview see "Conceptual Investigation of the Entropy Principle for Identification of Directives for Creation, Existence and Total Destruction of Order", S. P. Mahulikar et al (2004) in the physic journal Physica. Scripta (search "Conceptual Investigation of the Entropy").

Tornado in a Bottle ***
I will not lie. I struggled through first semester thermo, or thermogodamics as I referred to my first glimpse of the science behind heat and mass transfer. I don't think I was alone. But having struggled at first, I eventually picked up the pace and finished strong, coming out of it with a life long love of all thermodynamic cycles. It was with this foundation of love and hence great excitement that I ventured forth "Into the Cool" with Eric Schneider and Dorion Sagan leading the way. In the beginning they provided a brief history of thermo which immediately brought back great fondness for the subject. I was happy, at first, that perhaps this new book, would make thermo more publicly accessible, easing those first concepts through which every engineer must struggle. Not long into the pages did I realize that this book would not be the one to bring the joy of thermodynamics to the masses. It's not that they got it wrong. I think they've got their theory right. Not completely, but they are leading the way to an understanding that, as they point out, for the first time creationists and some scientists can agree. Evolution is too improbable without help. If this theory provides the theoretical help they envision, we are, in the end, the consummate sum of a collection of selfish genes that detest gradients. This might be true but I'm certain it doesn't give our live meaning. Nevertheless, this theory is big and it's important. It is, perhaps a fundamental force behind a coming scientific revolution -- a paradigm shift away from Darwin alone determining why we are here, if that's what you believe. We should applaud the authors for undertaking this challenge and we should reward them by allowing them to be the architects of the mainstream message. They have not, unfortunately, written this book very well. Here is an example from early on. With reference to a toy called Tornado in a Bottle the author's state, "Without the whirlpool, the water glug-glugs from the top to the bottom bottle through the hole. It takes about six minutes. By contrast the vortex, spinning in a highly organized fashion, completely drains the water in eleven seconds! An organized system degrades the gradient many times faster than the poorly organized state". This, of course, is completely false. The water in the top bottle is being held in the top bottle by a vacuum. As a small amount of water drops into the second bottle and a small amount of air is drawn back into the top bottle, the resulting air bubble rises to the top to equalize the pressure resulting in the familiar "glug-glug". The sound effect they captured correctly. What's really happening though is the vortex that is created as the water spins allows air to rise though the center continuously equalizing the pressure in both spaces allowing the water to run down the drain easily -- the fact that a spin was created (added to the system) to speed the water up, and the highly scientific fact that water runs down hill, all aid the quick drain. But there is more -- this idea that water molecules at rest are less organized than water rushing down a drain -- at the same temperature -- is once again, false. Fluid dynamics are at play here -- not thermodynamics. Fluid dynamics tells us that the turbulent flow is less organized than the laminar flow, but it is the laminar flow that offers more resistance from surface tension and friction. There is even more. The authors state, "Here is a graphic example of the superior effectiveness of cyclical gradient reduction. The rate of drainage is predictable. Over and over again the water drains in six minutes or eleven seconds. The gravitational (potential) energy gradient is degraded not by a simple structure but by a highly complex one --- 100 billion trillion water molecules spontaneously interact to form a twirling tunnel." This is priceless. The vision of Schneider and Sagan playing with this toy again and again and each time being amazed how the top bottle drains, for the wrong reason. And this idea of spontaneous interaction -- as if the molecules have a choice. And finally, they speak again, "Our cultural heritage appeals to logic, simplicity, and elegance. It leads us to assume that the quickest route from point A to point B is a straight line. But the Tornado is a Bottle's most effective way to go from full to empty is by way of a whirlpool." They must have slept through 7th grade science. With gravity, the quickest way from point A to point B is the cycloid. And light always takes the path of least time -- which is why it bends moving through to different materials. Sometimes it's not a straight line. And why are they blaming our cultural heritage? Is there something wrong with logic simplicity and elegance? And I think logic and simplicity and elegance still apply once you start solving the right problem. I'm concerned not with their message but with their delivery. It's not simply that they got Tornado in a Bottle wrong. As the text moves further into the chapter on Tornadoes and Cyclones almost every word is without merit -- and then they appeal to the "Complexity" of the phenomenon as if to say, we are just scratching the surface here -- it's too complex to understand, but trust us it works like this and we know what's really going on. That type of writing seriously undermines their message. So, bottomline here. You should have this book on your shelf and be familiar with the topic they describing. It is the face of change -- the paradigm shift yet to come. Skim it, read a few chapters that might draw you in. But don't worry about studying their arguments. There will be many more and better reasoned arguments to come.

Tornado in a Bottle ***

I will not lie. I struggled through first semester thermo, or thermogodamics as I referred to my first glimpse of the science behind heat and mass transfer. I don't think I was alone. But having struggled at first, I eventually picked up the pace and finished strong, coming out of it with a life long love of all thermodynamic cycles. It was with this foundation of love and hence great excitement that I ventured forth "Into the Cool" with Eric Schneider and Dorion Sagan leading the way.

In the beginning they provided a brief history of thermo which immediately brought back great fondness for the subject. I was happy, at first, that perhaps this new book, would make thermo more publicly accessible, easing those first concepts through which every engineer must struggle. Not long into the pages did I realize that this book would not be the one to bring the joy of thermodynamics to the masses. It's not that they got it wrong. I think they've got their theory right. Not completely, but they are leading the way to an understanding that, as they point out, for the first time creationists and some scientists can agree. Evolution is too improbable without help. If this theory provides the theoretical help they envision, we are, in the end, the consummate sum of a collection of selfish genes that detest gradients. This might be true but I'm certain it doesn't give our live meaning. Nevertheless, this theory is big and it's important. It is, perhaps a fundamental force behind a coming scientific revolution -- a paradigm shift away from Darwin alone determining why we are here, if that's what you believe.

We should applaud the authors for undertaking this challenge and we should reward them by allowing them to be the architects of the mainstream message. They have not, unfortunately, written this book very well.

Here is an example from early on. With reference to a toy called Tornado in a Bottle the author's state, "Without the whirlpool, the water glug-glugs from the top to the bottom bottle through the hole. It takes about six minutes. By contrast the vortex, spinning in a highly organized fashion, completely drains the water in eleven seconds! An organized system degrades the gradient many times faster than the poorly organized state". This, of course, is completely false. The water in the top bottle is being held in the top bottle by a vacuum. As a small amount of water drops into the second bottle and a small amount of air is drawn back into the top bottle, the resulting air bubble rises to the top to equalize the pressure resulting in the familiar "glug-glug". The sound effect they captured correctly. What's really happening though is the vortex that is created as the water spins allows air to rise though the center continuously equalizing the pressure in both spaces allowing the water to run down the drain easily -- the fact that a spin was created (added to the system) to speed the water up, and the highly scientific fact that water runs down hill, all aid the quick drain. But there is more -- this idea that water molecules at rest are less organized than water rushing down a drain -- at the same temperature -- is once again, false. Fluid dynamics are at play here -- not thermodynamics. Fluid dynamics tells us that the turbulent flow is less organized than the laminar flow, but it is the laminar flow that offers more resistance from surface tension and friction. There is even more. The authors state, "Here is a graphic example of the superior effectiveness of cyclical gradient reduction. The rate of drainage is predictable. Over and over again the water drains in six minutes or eleven seconds. The gravitational (potential) energy gradient is degraded not by a simple structure but by a highly complex one --- 100 billion trillion water molecules spontaneously interact to form a twirling tunnel." This is priceless. The vision of Schneider and Sagan playing with this toy again and again and each time being amazed how the top bottle drains, for the wrong reason. And this idea of spontaneous interaction -- as if the molecules have a choice. And finally, they speak again, "Our cultural heritage appeals to logic, simplicity, and elegance. It leads us to assume that the quickest route from point A to point B is a straight line. But the Tornado is a Bottle's most effective way to go from full to empty is by way of a whirlpool." They must have slept through 7th grade science. With gravity, the quickest way from point A to point B is the cycloid. And light always takes the path of least time -- which is why it bends moving through to different materials. Sometimes it's not a straight line. And why are they blaming our cultural heritage? Is there something wrong with logic simplicity and elegance? And I think logic and simplicity and elegance still apply once you start solving the right problem.

I'm concerned not with their message but with their delivery. It's not simply that they got Tornado in a Bottle wrong. As the text moves further into the chapter on Tornadoes and Cyclones almost every word is without merit -- and then they appeal to the "Complexity" of the phenomenon as if to say, we are just scratching the surface here -- it's too complex to understand, but trust us it works like this and we know what's really going on. That type of writing seriously undermines their message.

So, bottomline here. You should have this book on your shelf and be familiar with the topic they describing. It is the face of change -- the paradigm shift yet to come. Skim it, read a few chapters that might draw you in. But don't worry about studying their arguments. There will be many more and better reasoned arguments to come.

Facinating *****
Gets to the heart of the question "what is life" from a physical science (thermodynamic) perspective.

Facinating *****

Gets to the heart of the question "what is life" from a physical science (thermodynamic) perspective.

Everything Burns *****
Other reviewers have summarized the substance. Let me address the significance. Especially to "humanities" types like me. It is often said that there are some books that "must be read by every educated adult." When C.P. Snow famously identified a growing chasm between the "Two Cultures" of science and the humanities, he chose the Second Law of Thermodynamics, apparently at random, as a scientific achievement that ought to be acknowledged by all intellectual tribes. Snow argued that ignorance of the Law was like ignorance of Shakespeare. The book demonstrates that Snow's choice was profound. It is precisely the Second Law which has divided the "Two Cultures," and it is our new understanding of it that promises a reunion. The real cultural divide is not between the solemn ediface of "science" and the mushy-headed world of the humanities. The real divide is between those fields that bear relevance to the human world (sociology, economics, biology) and those that do not (chemistry, physics) - and the Second Law, properly understood, spans this divide. The authors argue that Nonequilibrium Thermodynamics (NET) the link that connects the heavens to the human world. Physicists have observed that the universe seems to be "winding down" from order into chaos - the inevitable entropic process toward "heat death" that is predicted by the Second Law. At the same time, biologists, economists, and climatologists have exhaustively documented local processes that appear to be "winding up" to higher states of order, increased interconnectedness, higher intelligence, and economic development. In other words, stock in the humanities and life sciences has been going up, while physics remains a world of existential gloom. So why bother with physics, when you can find hope in film studies, philosophy or economics? (Hell, with film studies in particular, you might just find some young reproductive opportunity in a tight sweater, and flout the Second Law together.) The authors suggest that there is no hard division between the "sciences" and the "humanities." The cosmos is one; it is knowable and worth knowing, even by the dopeist of mathematical illiterates. Humanities types should now cross this abyss - because NET explains human life in terms of physical law. And NET may hold the answers not just to "how" questions, but perhaps also "why" questions. This is not an easy read. In addressing both a lay and an academic audience simultaneously, the authors walk a tightrope, but they walk it admirably. There are still some indistinct concepts and undefined terms here and there. Worst of all, there is some math. But if you want to understand yourself in a new light, this book is worth the slog.

Everything Burns *****

Other reviewers have summarized the substance. Let me address the significance. Especially to "humanities" types like me.

It is often said that there are some books that "must be read by every educated adult." When C.P. Snow famously identified a growing chasm between the "Two Cultures" of science and the humanities, he chose the Second Law of Thermodynamics, apparently at random, as a scientific achievement that ought to be acknowledged by all intellectual tribes. Snow argued that ignorance of the Law was like ignorance of Shakespeare.

The book demonstrates that Snow's choice was profound. It is precisely the Second Law which has divided the "Two Cultures," and it is our new understanding of it that promises a reunion. The real cultural divide is not between the solemn ediface of "science" and the mushy-headed world of the humanities. The real divide is between those fields that bear relevance to the human world (sociology, economics, biology) and those that do not (chemistry, physics) - and the Second Law, properly understood, spans this divide.

The authors argue that Nonequilibrium Thermodynamics (NET) the link that connects the heavens to the human world. Physicists have observed that the universe seems to be "winding down" from order into chaos - the inevitable entropic process toward "heat death" that is predicted by the Second Law. At the same time, biologists, economists, and climatologists have exhaustively documented local processes that appear to be "winding up" to higher states of order, increased interconnectedness, higher intelligence, and economic development.

In other words, stock in the humanities and life sciences has been going up, while physics remains a world of existential gloom. So why bother with physics, when you can find hope in film studies, philosophy or economics? (Hell, with film studies in particular, you might just find some young reproductive opportunity in a tight sweater, and flout the Second Law together.)

The authors suggest that there is no hard division between the "sciences" and the "humanities." The cosmos is one; it is knowable and worth knowing, even by the dopeist of mathematical illiterates.
Humanities types should now cross this abyss - because NET explains human life in terms of physical law. And NET may hold the answers not just to "how" questions, but perhaps also "why" questions.

This is not an easy read. In addressing both a lay and an academic audience simultaneously, the authors walk a tightrope, but they walk it admirably. There are still some indistinct concepts and undefined terms here and there. Worst of all, there is some math. But if you want to understand yourself in a new light, this book is worth the slog.

Excellent *****
This book is excellent and should be read for those Physicochemical Professors that believe second law can not be taught without calculus. Thermodynamics is a subject demistified in this book.

Excellent *****

This book is excellent and should be read for those Physicochemical Professors that believe second law can not be taught without calculus. Thermodynamics is a subject demistified in this book.

Eric D Schneider and Dorion Sagan

Into the Cool