The only problem for the demon is, from outer perspective it seem like entropy inside the box is decreasing. So information theory try to say that missing entropy are converted into information. the most counter-intuitive explanation is "In order to forget or delete data we need to use energy which produce more entropy" All these story just for maintain that "entropy of closed system can not decrease".

In my understanding, entropy is term of probabillity of energy distribution. the system will saturate or balance in highest probabillity. For particle bouncing in the box, the Maxwell–Boltzmann distribution is highest entropy. there for regardless of inertial distribution, the system alway converge to Maxwell–Boltzmann distribution.

For Maxwell's demon my theory is "When energy-distribute condition changed, the definition or function of entropy must change to new proabillity function" So at the moment we close the box. The entropy will change sudently then start to rise until it settle when high energy and low energy separted successfully (demon's job done) and each section converge to highest entropy (should be Maxwell–Boltzmann distribution)

Did I successfully deny information theory? or anything I misunderstanding?

I thought about these for a while and feel pain in my head. Also information theory make me uncomfortable.


1 Answer 1


You need to explain how the demon is doing work on the system. Not some semantic definition of something. It separated hot from cold for example. You could use that to light a light bulb. Changing your definition of entropy does not explain how that can happen.

  • $\begingroup$ In my oppinion, demon just work like it descript by Maxwell at least in simulation. The machanism can work but the problem is it violate second law of thermo dynamics by decreasing entropy. The old solution for this is the system's entropy convert in to demon memory which not convincing for me. So I try to solve this problem in another way and deny information theory. $\endgroup$
    – M lab
    Jul 21, 2021 at 20:19
  • $\begingroup$ sure, but you still need to explain in your new frame work how i'm lighting my lightbulb. See szilard engine for a more detailed picture of excatly how to light a lightbulb this way. with expierimental verification pnas.org/content/111/38/13786 $\endgroup$ Jul 21, 2021 at 20:24

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.