http://focus.aps.org/story/v23/st10
"In collisions between two deformable or sticky objects, some or all of the initial energy is usually lost to heat. But computer simulations of nanocluster collisions, as described in the March Physical Review E, show that thermal fluctuations in the tiny projectiles can cause them to rebound with more kinetic energy than they started with. This energy boost would seem to violate the second law of thermodynamics, which bans heat from being turned directly into energy of motion. (...) The fraction of these anomalous rebounds increased with the cluster temperature. "When the temperature increases, more and more vibrating modes are excited," Kuninaka says. These vibrations can sometimes give an extra kick to the collision, like a gymnast pushing off the pummel horse to get a greater lift. The transfer of energy from random internal motion of the atoms to the movement of the whole cluster creates a decrease in entropy and therefore an apparent violation of the second law of thermodynamics. But that's OK at small scales."

That's OK at large scales as well, as demonstrated by macroscopic contractile polymers:

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jp972167t
J. Phys. Chem. B, 1997, 101 (51), pp 11007 - 11028
Dan W. Urry, "Physical Chemistry of Biological Free Energy Transduction As Demonstrated by Elastic Protein-Based Polymers"

As far as I know, the only paper explaining (or trying to explain) how biased thermal motion can phenomenologically be expressed as violation of the second law of thermodynamics is this one:

http://www.wbabin.net/valev/valev2.htm

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

Pentcho Valev wrote:
>http://focus.aps.org/story/v23/st10
> "In collisions between two deformable or sticky objects, some or all
> of the initial energy is usually lost to heat. But computer
> simulations of nanocluster collisions, as described in the March
> Physical Review E, show that thermal fluctuations in the tiny
> projectiles can cause them to rebound with more kinetic energy than
> they started with. This energy boost would seem to violate the second
> law of thermodynamics, which bans heat from being turned directly into
> energy of motion. (...) The fraction of these anomalous rebounds
> increased with the cluster temperature. "When the temperature
> increases, more and more vibrating modes are excited," Kuninaka says.
> These vibrations can sometimes give an extra kick to the collision,
> like a gymnast pushing off the pummel horse to get a greater lift. The
> transfer of energy from random internal motion of the atoms to the
> movement of the whole cluster creates a decrease in entropy and
> therefore an apparent violation of the second law of thermodynamics.
> But that's OK at small scales."
>
> That's OK at large scales as well, as demonstrated by macroscopic
> contractile polymers:
>
>http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jp972167t
> J. Phys. Chem. B, 1997, 101 (51), pp 1100711028
> Dan W. Urry, "Physical Chemistry of Biological Free Energy
> Transduction As Demonstrated by Elastic Protein-Based Polymers"
>
> As far as I know, the only paper explaining (or trying to explain) how
> biased thermal motion can phenomenologically be expressed as violation
> of the second law of thermodynamics is this one:
>
>http://www.wbabin.net/valev/valev2.htm

People expressing views that conflict with conventional wisdom are normally ignored, ridiculed or attacked but in the cases of the second law of thermodynamics and Einstein's 1905 false light postulate additional measures had to be taken by the establishment. Official "mavericks" have been introduced - individuals who know both how to challenge the false fundamental principle without challenging it and how to extract career and money from the campaign:

http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=5538
Paul Davies: "Was Einstein wrong? Einstein's famous equation E=mc2 is the only scientific formula known to just about everyone. The "c" here stands for the speed of light. It is one of the most fundamental of the basic constants of physics. Or is it? In recent years a few maverick scientists have claimed that the speed of light might not be constant at all. Shock, horror! Does this mean the next Great Revolution in Science is just around the corner?"

In thermodynamics the "maverick" who leads the red herring campaign is Daniel Sheehan:

http://www.energyfromthevacuum.com/Disc8/
"CHALLENGING THE SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS with Professor DANIEL SHEEHAN PhD Physics Department University of San Diego
"In this DVD, University of San Diego physics professor Dr. Daniel Sheehan who co-hosted the two conferences, gives us a tour of the field as seen through the mainstream eyes of an honest seeker of the truth. A dynamic, fascinating and entertaining speaker, he shows that all is not well with the concept of the inviolability of the second law."

In relativity the respective "maverick" is, of course, the ubiquitous Joao Magueijo:

http://www.amazon.com/Faster-Than-Speed-Light-Speculation/dp/0738205257
Joao Magueijo: "I am by profession a theoretical physicist. By every definition I am a fully credentialed scholar-graduate work and Ph.D. at Cambridge, followed by a very prestigious research fellowship at St. John's College, Cambridge (Paul Dirac and Abdus Salam formerly held this fellowship), then a Royal Society research fellow. Now I'm a lecturer (the equivalent of a tenured professor in the United States) at Imperial College. (...) A missile fired from a plane moves faster than one fired from the ground because the plane's speed adds to the missile's speed. If I throw something forward on a moving train, its speed with respect to the platform is the speed of that object plus that of the train. You might think that the same should happen to light: Light flashed from a train should travel faster. However, what the Michelson-Morley experiments showed was that this was not the case: Light always moves stubbornly at the same speed. This means that if I take a light ray and ask several observers moving with respect to each other to measure the speed of this light ray, they will all agree on the same apparent speed!"

Official "mavericks" manage to camouflage the presence of genuine criticism and so science just dies without the world noticing its death:

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00000313/
Jos Uffink: "In the eyes of many modern physicists, the theory has acquired a somewhat dubious status. They regard classical thermodynamics as a relic from a bygone era... Indeed, the view that thermodynamics is obsolete is so common that many physicists use the phrase 'Second Law of Thermodynamics' to denote some counterpart of this law in the kinetic theory of gases or in statistical mechanics."

Relativity's death is relatively recent but in 10-20 years another "Jos Uffink" may find it suitable to write:

"In the eyes of many modern physicists, the theory has acquired a somewhat dubious status. They regard relativity as a relic from a bygone era... Indeed, the view that relativity is obsolete is so common that many physicists use the phrase 'Constancy of the Speed of Light' to denote a definition adopted at the 1983 Conference Generale des Poids et Mesures."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

Pentcho Valev wrote:
>http://focus.aps.org/story/v23/st10
> "In collisions between two deformable or sticky objects, some or all
> of the initial energy is usually lost to heat. But computer
> simulations of nanocluster collisions, as described in the March
> Physical Review E, show that thermal fluctuations in the tiny
> projectiles can cause them to rebound with more kinetic energy than
> they started with. This energy boost would seem to violate the second
> law of thermodynamics, which bans heat from being turned directly into
> energy of motion. (...) The fraction of these anomalous rebounds
> increased with the cluster temperature. "When the temperature
> increases, more and more vibrating modes are excited," Kuninaka says.
> These vibrations can sometimes give an extra kick to the collision,
> like a gymnast pushing off the pummel horse to get a greater lift. The
> transfer of energy from random internal motion of the atoms to the
> movement of the whole cluster creates a decrease in entropy and
> therefore an apparent violation of the second law of thermodynamics.
> But that's OK at small scales."
>
> That's OK at large scales as well, as demonstrated by macroscopic
> contractile polymers:
>
>http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jp972167t
> J. Phys. Chem. B, 1997, 101 (51), pp 1100711028
> Dan W. Urry, "Physical Chemistry of Biological Free Energy
> Transduction As Demonstrated by Elastic Protein-Based Polymers"
>
> As far as I know, the only paper explaining (or trying to explain) how
> biased thermal motion can phenomenologically be expressed as violation
> of the second law of thermodynamics is this one:
>
>http://www.wbabin.net/valev/valev2.htm

Curiously, scientists often bump into biased thermal motion (more precisely, into conversion of random thermal energy into work) and even reach the correct conclusion:

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=second-law-of-thermodynam
SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN: "Second Law of Thermodynamics Violated....Genmiao M. Wang of the Australian National University and colleagues discovered the anomaly when they dragged a micron-sized bead through a container of water using optical tweezers. The team found that, on occasion, the water molecules interacted with the bead in such a way that energy was transferred from the liquid to the bead. These additional kicks used the random thermal motion of the water to do the work of moving the bead, in effect yielding something for nothing."

Still no new theory can be built: thermodynamics is dead but still exists in the form of Augean stables and no good stuff can be discovered amidst the crap.

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com