# Heat cycles for democratization and cutting edge experiments innovation and discovery  Carnot cycles work by iso-entropic temperature increase (putting work into the system) then iso-thermal entropy increase (increasing disorder at high potential) then iso-entropic temperature decrease (getting work out of the system) then iso-thermal entropic decrease (increasing order in the system) ([[The Most Famous Loop - Article]]) Also related to [[Conjugate Variables]] [Conjugate variables (thermodynamics) - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conjugate_variables_(thermodynamics)) What can you abstract volume and pressure into? PV = nRT W = (1-Tc/Th)Q Variable you have to play with: * Temperature (potential) * Theory vs practice - this makes sense because * Entropy (disorder) * Democratization vs. institutionalization * Big coordinated teams vs small uncoordinated teams teams * Volume * Tinkering vs Theory-driven building * Pressure * Competition/Time scales (or 1/[[Slack - concept]] in system) * Work * Progress Things that I would like to try to throw at this framework * Democratization vs. institutionalization/bottom up vs top down/centralization vs decentralization * Theory vs practice * Cheap vs. expensive equipment * Big vs small teams * Tinkering vs Theory-driven building * Theory driven building works well when you have a very complex system. Tinkering tends to happen when you democratize the system. System complexity increases as you exploit the paradigm. * Discovery vs. Invention * Competition/Time scales * Type I vs Type II progress * This generally corresponds to whether you’re making new things or making existing things better * Exploration vs Exploitation * Formalization vs. informalization * Revolutionary vs evolutionary work * Ideally when you run out of theory (are these the fruit on an S curve?) Loops could have infinite dimensions - Carnot cycle technically has four - but it doesn’t need to. Do you need to have an even number of dimensions? Yes because you need to have conjugate variables Are big and small teams isomorphic to centralization vs decentralization? On the one hand you could have a bunch of individuals working under the same forcing function - kind of like the NSF: is that decentralization or decentralization. Maybe what I mean is more small uncoordinated teams or big coordinated teams. That is isomorphic to centralization vs decentralization. You can also abstract further and think about any time you have these dichotomies where there are examples of dichotomies where the answer is “sometimes you do one and sometimes you do another.” Thinking about loops is important because you can shift the discussion from “how do we keep trying to push this one leg of the cycle as far as we can?” To “when is it best to make a right turn?” Theory-driven observations happen in a low-democracy state ([[Theory can suggest where to dig for new phenomena]]) because they’re most effective when there is a small group of people who all know about the same thing. High-democracy observations can lead to more theory/new paradigms because they allow people to discover things that weren’t even theorized. In order to create high democracy observations, observation tools need to become cheap and plentiful enough. Observation tools become cheap and plentiful when there is a lot of demand and use of the tools, which forces learning by doing and miniaturization. You can discover new [[phenomena]] either by p ### Related * [[Activity Space]] * [[Knowledge frontier]] * [[When should we defer to experts?]] ### References * Rethinking Science with [[Josiah Zayner]] — see [[Podcast List]] * [[Epistemic Trespassing]] <!-- #stub/needs-work --> [Web URL for this note](http://notes.benjaminreinhardt.com/Heat+cycles+for+democratization+and+cutting+edge+experiments+innovation+and+discovery) [Comment on this note](http://via.hypothes.is/http://notes.benjaminreinhardt.com/Heat+cycles+for+democratization+and+cutting+edge+experiments+innovation+and+discovery)