The subtitle of the story could be Maxwell’s little devil, explained by Wikipedia in these terms:
“In the philosophy of thermal and statistical physics, Maxwell’s demon is a thought experiment created by the physicist James Clerk Maxwell in 1867 in which he suggested how the second law of thermodynamics might hypothetically be violated.”.
As you will certainly know, hell is the realm of devils. At the top there are four great lords: Lucifer, the first of the fallen angels for having disobeyed and rebelled against God, primus inter pares, but basically he is the boss, then Beelzebub, Astaroth and Azazel. Six supervisors report directly to them: Agaliarept, Asmodeus, Fleruty, Lucifuge Rofogale, Sargatanas and Satanachia. Following are seventy-two main devils, commanders of legions of devils, with various levels of responsibility, depending on whether kings, dukes, marquises, counts and presidents. I cannot list them all, so I will remind you only a few: Bael, a king, commands sixty-six legions; Agares, a duke, commands thirty-one legions; Amores, a marquis, commands forty legions; Zepar, a duke, commands twenty-eight legions; Asmoday, a king, commands seventy-two legions; Furfurael, a count, commands twenty-six legions; I would close with Aim, a president, commands thirty-six legions. I’m just a fifth or sixth class devil, assistant to a legionnaire, a little devil, but I’m not complaining, I’m young. The hierarchy is hierarchy, especially here in the hell. Not everyone get through the front door, the main gate, most enters from the secondary entrances, but it is not a matter of recommendations, rather of credentials, depends on the curriculum. You can also do a certain career, it depends a lot on the circumstances, perhaps also on luck, on the assigned task and obviously on the results.
Most devils aspire to care for the souls of the damned who come in droves here in the hell, to inflict on their deserved punishment, mistreat them, torture them, mock them and make them feel at home. And it is good that they are many, because they are never enough, the damned come all the time and are an endless tide. It’s not a job I like, I’m not made for these things, then I hate blood, I would not hurt a fly. Then there are those who prefer to take care of human beings, to tempt them, to induce them to sin and to perdition, to nourish the stream of the damned. They are very skilled. I once read a description of them made by a holy man, a certain Isidore of Seville: “They unsettle the senses, stir low passions, disorder life, cause alarms in sleep, bring diseases, fill the mind with terror, distort the limbs, control the way in which lots are cast, make a pretence at oracles by their tricks, arouse the passion of love, create the heat of cupidity, lurk in consecrated images; when invoked they appear; they tell lies that resemble truth; they take on different forms, and sometimes appear in the likeness of angels.” To die of laughing. I fall into that category, but I like handling more subtle questions, to instigate an insatiable hunger for knowledge of creation, of human things and of divine things, to inspire the desire for omnipotence, to plant doubt, to upset certainties, to urge the minds, to torture reason, to lose sleep and head. I’m also very good at that. Someone must have immediately understood these my inclinations and qualities, because from the beginning I began to work in this field. One of my first assignments, for example, was to insinuate in the minds of some human beings the idea of a device consisting of a ball, sometimes even a different shape like animals and even a little devil-shaped creature, inserted in a transparent bottle or jar, such as glass or plastic, filled with water almost to the brim, still leaving a vacuum of air, closed with a flexible lid like a membrane. By pressing and releasing the membrane, the ball floats or goes to the bottom or remains at various heights in the water depending on the pressure exerted. The trick is to make a small hole in the ball so that the air it contains can vary in volume as the pressure changes, thus affecting the density of the ball. What a fun! They have been running it through their head.
Now I have a job even more fun and delicate, subtler. I must premise that, contrary to what can be believed, what human beings normally believe, it is not that here in the hell we are ignorant, stupid and brainless. Indeed, there are a lot of smart people, among which without false modesty I think I can count myself, both by innate intelligence and by acquired wisdom, having freely available all the minds of human beings and all the books that have been written in the world, accessible instantly and without any effort. Of course, it’s a question of predisposition, character, interests and, as I said, many love to deal with more operational things. But, those who choose to fully devote themselves to knowledge, which however does not place them in any particular position of privilege with respect to others, because here in the hell we are all the same with regard to the primary objective that is and always will be to force men to sin and lead them to damnation and eternal punishment, they are so prepared as to fear no comparisons, dialectical skirmishes and doctoral disputes with the best doctors of the Church , professional theologians and operating saints, even with the most learned among men of culture, both in the Sciences and Humanities. So, those who, like myself, devote themselves to ambitions and torments of human reason and to apology of doubt, in the wake of Mephistopheles and Woland, they do it with full mastery of the field in which they work, of cracks, slits, channels through which to creep, to go to the heart of passions and questions on which to leverage to succeed in their intent.
My job requires a particular mastery in the subjects to which human beings have assigned fanciful names such as kinetic theory, statistical mechanics and thermodynamics, as well as innumerable other variants and terminological extensions. I consider completely irrelevant to label branches of knowledge, convinced as I am that knowledge is one, atomic, inseparable, on the other hand the possibility of having it all clear and limpid in front of my eyes does not contemplate the need to partialize it in order to better dominate it, as instead men are forced to do in order to at least partially address their limits. In the end, the only true encyclopaedists are just us devils, strange as it may seem. I’ve been asking myself the problem of how best to talk to you about my job without entering into details that might perhaps bore you or catch you unprepared, on the other end to allow you to fully perceive its subtleties, its importance and its objectives. It is certainly not my intention to make petty disclosure, to be clear not because I am not able to do it, but because it is not something that interests me particularly nor the purpose of my chat. However, it is also necessary for me to explain well the context in which I work.
I would start by making sure of something very simple, of your understanding or not of the distinction between cold and hot, a question probably considered trivial and obvious by a minority, but certainly not completely clear to the majority, as it is natural when you have to deal with human beings, whose unpredictability and ignorance is widely known and proverbial among us, a source of compassion, irony, sneers and jokes. Unlike us, superior beings, the perceptibility of human beings through the senses is so coarse that they have had to resort to instruments such as thermometers, an idea that I must recognize is not evil, to obtain objective information and precise measurements on cold and hot, identifying in the concept of temperature and its measurement on the basis of variations to the changing of some physical properties of the bodies, the parameter useful for the purpose. Some have indulged in inventing thermometers among the most diverse and bizarre, for the strangest purposes and environments. It must be acknowledged that as far as inventiveness is concerned, they can do it. Ignorant in general, but ingenious and skilled in certain circumstances, I would have to say diabolical, if it did not sound almost like a joke of not sublime taste and a contamination that, I confess, creates a certain disgust. The race of inventors, human beings, inventors, navigators and poets, has been said for them. But in the confusion of their minds, in the disorganization of their work, in their miserable attempt to rival, in the complex connections of their relationships, in their primitive ways of communicating and in the imperfection of their notion of time which, instead of unfolding horizontally, in terms of flank, forward and backward, like our infernal, flat and eternal time, unfolds vertically, in terms of past, present and future, before and after, implying that the same things redo in different times, from different people, with different methods and different concepts, in all this plurality of complications they gave temperatures different measurement units, whose names echo between laughter in our convivial meetings: degrees Celsius, Réaumur, Fahrenheit, Kelvin, Rankine, Newton, Delisle and Rømer. Unbelievable! Then, hot is equivalent to a higher temperature, cold equates to a lower temperature.
Having said that, I can imagine that it is a common experience in your miserable lives as human beings, I use the term miserable in a not pejorative meaning, so common where I come from, but with a meaning closer to hapless and worthy of compassion, more in keeping with my character, to see that the heat passes from a warm body to a cold body and not the other way around, it passes from the fire that you light up in winter to your trembling bodies, from the sun that shines to the nature that surrounds you to your limbs, instead it never happened to see the ice warms up the drinks and the water of the seas founders the iron. I speak of the heat as if for all human beings it is an obvious thing! We live in the heat, for us heat is life and instrument of punishment, it is the heat of a fire that burns without destroying, infinitely more terrible than any other experience, so welcoming and pleasant for us. We know everything about the heat. I know very well that for humans it is not so, thus it is appropriate that I explain it further. For starters, let us quickly clear away any misunderstandings. The heat is not a magic fluid, a kind of caloric, which is inside the bodies and that the more there is the more a body is hot, that is it has a higher temperature, then to move from the bodies that are richer of it to the bodies that have less, like a flickering snake. It is a form of energy, an entity that derives from ergon, which stands for work and action, to indicate the capacity for action, to work, that bodies and systems have thanks to their state of motion, position, agitation of particles which constitute them, their chemical or nuclear bonds and other properties. And it is known to most that energy is neither created nor destroyed, but is conserved, transforming itself from one form into another, even it can be transformed into mass and the mass in turn into energy. Here in hell these things are completely meaningless, since we and hell are another place, a non-place, another dimension, where spirit, thought, power, act, eternity and energy are one, but human beings and their world have reasoned on it for a long time and are still reasoning, having written endless books on these topics, unfortunately ignored by most, unfortunately for them of course. But it is a form of energy not possessed by bodies as an intrinsic property, but an energy in transit, which manifests itself and is transmitted between bodies because of a difference in temperature between them, a second species energy. So, I said that energy is transferred in the form of heat from a hot body to a cold body, but it has never been seen in the human world that heat is transmitted from a cold to a warm body. No one has ever observed such a thing, there is neither trace of oral testimony nor written books. A transformation that can naturally occur only in one direction is called irreversible, that is not reversible, it cannot be done in the reverse direction. The question arises: is it really irreversible? Human beings have always been fought essentially between acknowledging certain facts, consolidating which can go further, and perseverance in seeking some plausible explanation at a more internal, more elementary and primary level. So, at some point some said: okay, we take note of this natural and experimental behaviour and let’s raise it to a law, with emphasis called the second law of thermodynamics. Thermodynamics is clearly, that is in a strictly etymological sense, the name that humans have given to science that studies the motion of heat, in its energy transformations, in its ability to transform itself into work, while the fact that it is the second is a purely ordinal issue, since the circumstance, which I have already mentioned, of the conservation of energy has already been indicated as the first law. They say law in the meaning of principle. Principle is a beautiful word! I have always admired the dialectic capacity and creativity of human beings. They could have called it affirmation, idea, notion, truth or even theorem, flying over the possibility or not to prove it rigorously, basically physics is not mathematical, but principle is stronger, it is synonymous with foundation, base construct, hinge from which leaving to build another one, a house, a palace, a chain of reasoning and conclusions that leads far away. Ambitious human beings, even at risk that if the hinge falters the whole building collapses on itself. It was a guy named Clausius who was more explicit: it is impossible for heat to spontaneously transfer from a cold body to a warm body. It was really smart this Clausius! He put the adverb spontaneously in it, that is on his own initiative, without any effort. Safeguarding in this way the possibility of realizing a heat transfer from a cold body to a warm body not spontaneously, employing for this purpose an energetic effort, a work, a consumption of energy from the outside. And thus, legitimizing the invention of the refrigerator, which as it is known works with an engine, which at first was a gasoline one, then an electric one. Human beings will never end to amaze me! They are afraid of the warm and they invent air conditioners, of the cold and they invent stoves and radiators, to stay without eating and they invent the refrigerator to store the food! They cannot find peace. The aforementioned Kelvin formulated another statement of the second law of thermodynamics: it is impossible that the heat coming out of a warm body all turns into useful work, but a part of the heat must necessarily be transferred to a cold body. Obviously, even this statement is exclusively experimental in nature, the result of experiences that are commonly carried out, turned into a law. The two statements are absolutely equivalent, interchangeable, one consequence of the other, and could not be otherwise seen as they are both direct expression of the natural behaviour of the world, of how things go, of the irreversibility of all natural processes. Clausius the smart conceived a measure of this irreversibility too, introducing a quantity that he called entropy, such that in any irreversible transformation the entropy of the system that undergoes the transformation added to that of the environment outside the system always increases. Once again I would like to make you observe Clausius’s almost diabolical ability, because so stated the issue it’s not excluded a priori that for an exceptional event, never observed in nature, the entropy of a system may decrease, but even if it were to happen then it must increase and to a greater extent the entropy of the environment outside the system. And this led to another statement of the second law of thermodynamics: the entropy of the universe, sum of the entropy of the irreversible transformation that undergoes a natural system and of the rest of the universe, always increases. From this point of view, the second law of thermodynamics assigns a direction to the natural processes, which has been called (human beings are weird!) arrow of the time, that is we can say that time flows in the direction according to which entropy increases. Of course, in the human world. Here in the hell all is possible. It is at the same time all possible and impossible, not-possible and not-impossible. Time does not have an arrow. Our world is unique and magnificent in its human incomprehensibility and incommensurability.
I said that human beings are also looking for more intimate and profound explanations of things, stubborn beings who also have the dream of the ultimate, primary motivations. So, some people began to think in terms that can be called microscopic. The idea they had was to consider all bodies, from the most complex to the simplest, such as gases and vapours, to be compose of a huge number of very small particles in perpetual disorderly motion, a confused and random one. Already centuries before, on the human scale of course, the idea had come forward that the world was essentially made up of emptiness and very small particles of matter not further divisible, therefore called atoms. And among human beings, ideas are hard to die, perhaps they fall into disuse, end up in the shadows, go out of fashion, but then come back, regain their strength and from overcome paradigms they turn into the current paradigm, the dominant ideas. Then, these tiny particles were easy to think of as atoms, eventually aggregated into molecules, according to what chemistry had matured after some centuries. I must ask you, in spite of myself, to admire the audacity of this idea, given that at the time no one had yet not saying seen, but neither proved the existence of these famous atoms. And in the end the macroscopic hypothesis, that of considering the bodies as a whole and relying only on macroscopic parameters of the bodies such as temperature, volume and pressure, together with the laws of thermodynamics as defined, worked very well. But why could this idea be useful? After all it was like multiplying the difficulties, passing from one or few bodies to a number of billions and billions of very small particles. The answer I can give, that I feel to give, is always that: the weirdness of human beings, their eccentricity, their diversity. But clearly they had some tricks up their sleeves, at least two: first of all there had been someone called Newton, who had well explained how and why the bodies move, and then they were now known of statistical techniques based on the calculation of probabilities (that of the dice game, to be understood) to express laws relating to the behaviour of huge numbers of data or objects. Clearly, in order to be able to proceed concretely, some simplifications were needed, which were to consider only the gaseous bodies, the very small particles such as spheres without their own volume, the impacts between them and with the walls of the gas container such as not generate losses of energy. Reasonable simplifications, because many real gases at high temperature and low pressure behave more or less like that and because after all the liquid and solid bodies are like very compressed gases, with the very small particles very close to each other, so with some correction the basic idea also applies to them. Moving in this direction, these bold guys including Clausius himself, a true two-faced Janus, someone called Maxwell, who I can anticipate just to be at the origin of my current assignment, and a certain Boltzmann, succeeded in relating the macroscopic parameters of the bodies, such as pressure and temperature, with microscopic parameters related to the tiny constituent particles, calculated as average values, in particular with the root mean square speed (that is to say the square root of the mean of the squares of the particle speeds). Then they found that both the pressure and the temperature are statistically proportional to the root mean square speed. A remarkable conclusion. But even more important was that Boltzmann succeeded in establishing a statistical relationship between the entropy of a system and the degree of disorder of the system itself: an increase in the disorder corresponds to an increase in entropy. Disorder can mean many things, a tenuous term. To give you an idea it is advisable to give you some examples. A class of students in which the boys are all on one side and the girls all on the other is ordered, if one or two boys change places with other girls the class becomes moderately disordered, if boys and girls are sitting randomly the class is more disordered, the entropy has increased. A surface like a rectangle made with a single white card is ordered, if made by putting two or four cards together is partially disordered, if the constituent cards are in large numbers the surface is very disordered, the entropy is increased. If two different gases such as helium and oxygen are at the same pressure in two separate parts of a container, the container is ordered, but if between the two parts a hole is made progressively more and more oxygen molecules will go to the helium side and vice versa thus the container will be more and more disordered, the entropy increases. A perfume in its elegant bottle is an ordered system, but if we open the bottle and leave it open the scent will begin to progressively spread throughout the room, gradually emptying the bottle and increasing the disorder of the system, increasing entropy. Therefore entropy is a byword for disorder. Then, if two plus two makes four, which no human being would question, the natural, irreversible phenomena, evolving towards the increase of entropy, evolve towards more and more disordered states. The arrow of time is directed towards progressive disorder. The second law of thermodynamics becomes the law of the tendency of natural phenomena towards disorder. But, being the basis of the link entropy-disorder a statistical and probabilistic derivation, consequence of the huge number of tiny particles involved, it follows that the second law becomes a statistical law, no longer an absolute law but a direction of the natural phenomena towards the most likely states. And therefore, breaking it is no longer a question of factual impossibility, but it is only extremely improbable. It is extremely unlikely that heat will spontaneously transfer from a cold body to a warm body. It is extremely unlikely that a fragrance, once spread throughout a room, will spontaneously re-enter its bottle, an almost miracle would be necessary so that the billions and billions of perfume molecules in their random shocks find the exceptional circumstance to redirect all of them towards the entrance of the bottle. Truly an amazing conclusion and a radical change of paradigm. But the opponents of this conclusion did not lack, with fierce criticism, mainly directed towards Boltzmann. Believe me, human beings can be bad by themselves, without us devils putting our tails. Bad and very bad, considering what in the brief moment of their history they managed to make of terrible. Some criticisms were directed at the fact that Newton’s motion laws are intrinsically reversible with respect to time, they are valid both for a time that is oriented towards the future and for a time that is oriented towards the past, so it would be impossible, according to these critics, that from basis of reversibility we can reach conclusions on the irreversibility of natural processes. Another criticism, very clever, was due to a guy called Zermelo, who demonstrated a theorem called the recurrent paradox, according to which if a mechanical system in its motion assumes a certain configuration, the system will sooner or later, after a not infinite time, find itself in this same configuration, so the fragrance spread in a room will surely sooner or later return to its bottle. Boltzmann himself admired the subtlety of this argument, but calculated that the necessary time, although finite, would be enormously long, much more than the age of the entire human universe, therefore, he concluded, extremely unlikely. But the battle of Boltzmann led him to a virtually isolated position, all against him, judged rather retrograde, not resigning himself to see in energy and thermodynamics the first principles and not in the old Newtonian mechanics. In deep depression, to which his scientific battles were not completely alien, he eventually committed suicide. And we certainly were not plotting against him, the human beings did all alone, I assure you. In despair, he said: “I am aware that I am only an individual who weakly struggles against the current of time. But I can always contribute, so that when the gas theory will be resumed there will not be too much that it needs to be rediscovered.”. If it can comfort you, I can reveal you, I will make an exception, that I have never seen him here in the hell.
At this point I acted. I believe I have provided or reminded you of sufficient information to understand the context in which I am working and the details of my current job. You will surely have understood that the context is very fertile to intervene in my way, instigate the doubt and oppress the reason. I first identified the most suitable subject. Of course I had already excluded Boltzmann, it would have been like the poor end up paying the price, I had already felt enough pity for him. Not that I am sensitive to human fortunes, you will have understood it, I am obviously a devil, but I do not like to win easy, I need an opponent up to the height, intellectually stimulating, but at the height of his physical and mental form otherwise there is no fun or glory. I chose Maxwell, James Clerk Maxwell, brilliant, acute theorist, clever, eclectic, Scottish and fervent believer, sincere Christian, convinced that God created the universe and endowed man with reason to understand it, even witty, the ideal man. Of course everyone who does my job has its ideal subject, Mephistopheles chose Faust, Woland the Master, me Maxwell. I then identified the crack in which to insinuate myself, an equally delicate and important issue of the subject, closely related to it. The crack is precisely the second law of thermodynamics, in the microscopic-statistical version that Maxwell had contributed to elaborate. I began to insert myself in his mind, in his reason, in his dreams, gradually and without haste. It is one of my favourite moments, which gives more pleasure, because it requires skill and prudence, tact and cunning. It must be an imperceptible process, such as to be perceived by the subject as a development of his own, an inner torment, an idea that is profiled and matures, certainly not as an external intervention, an intrusion and furthermore demonic too, an obsession to suggest the hypothesis that one is no longer oneself, is possessed by the devil. No sign of escalation, insanity or schizophrenia. I suggested, making sure that he considered it appropriate, indeed necessary, to look for a rigorous scientific basis for the second law of thermodynamics by formulating an experiment, naturally only conceptual, that could refute the law, falsify it, if it had demonstrated its inconsistency in practice. Something that, acting on a microscopic level on single particles, could produce a macroscopic violation of the second law of thermodynamics. I suppose you are familiar with Popper’s epistemology, according to which a science is such only if it can be falsified. And Maxwell, who died about a quarter of a century before Popper was born, was still inclined to critically consider his conclusions, to evaluate them, to test them. I told you, that he was my ideal man. After the crack, the picklock, the tool necessary for the purpose. We have seen that the temperature is statistically proportional to the root mean square speed of the many very small particles constituting a body. Let’s see in more detail what it means. Talking about average values means that some particles are slow, others have intermediate speeds, while others are fast. The velocities of the particles are distributed according to a certain rule, the law of the velocity distributions of Maxwell-Boltzmann, from the name of the two scholars. Maxwell had basically found, and Boltzmann confirmed, that few particles have low velocities, then the number of particles with higher velocity increases, up to reach a large number of particles with a maximum speed, which is therefore the most probable speed, for then to have a smaller number of particles with a speed greater than the maximum, a number that decreases further with increasing speed, up to having few particles with very high speeds. A kind of speed bell, higher and narrow at low temperatures, lower and wider towards higher speeds as the temperature increases. The effect of this distribution is that the mean speed is about 13% higher than the most probable speed, while the root mean square speed is about 23% higher than the most probable speed, however there is a small but significant number of particles with higher velocity than the root mean square speed. Based on that, I then induced Maxwell to hypothesize the possibility of creating a temperature variation between two bodies without the need for external energy consumption, without any work from the outside, transferring heat from a body at a lower temperature to a body at higher temperature. What great idea! Grant me the honour of arms, the right to pride, the sublime ecstasy of perfection, the highest ranking, the biggest bonuses! I evoked in Maxwell, in his mind and in his dreams, the picture of a container filled with gas at a given temperature, which at a certain point is separated into two parts by a partition wall, setting two rooms at exactly the same temperature, that of beginning. The partition wall is equipped with a closed door, which can however be opened and closed as desired. On the basis of what we have said, in each of the two environments being at a given temperature means that the frenetic and random motion of the innumerable particles is such as to determine a specific root mean square speed, equal in the two environments. But there are still particles with lower velocities than the root mean square speed and particles with higher velocities than the root mean square speed. So, what did I do? I made sure that Maxwell conceived the possibility of someone managing the door, someone without the need to consume external energy, an almost virtual being. And who better than myself! Virtual, symbolic and supernatural par excellence. And here is that Maxwell has envisaged a little guy by the look of a devil, an avatar of mine in the image and likeness of the human idea of the devil, dressed in a tight red suit, between the human and the animal, with cape, tail tip and horns, with the pitchfork too. To die of laughter, rolling on the ground between laughter, laughing his socks off and writhe! And the little devil, spiteful by definition, when sees a particle coming from the left environment towards the door with a velocity higher than the root mean square speed he opens the door and lets the particle pass into the right environment, keeping the door closed if particles arrive with velocities equal to or less than the root mean square speed. The right environment is therefore enriched by particles with high speed, while the left one is depleted, rich in particles with low speed. It follows that, as the little devil proceeds with his work, progressively the temperature of the left environment decreases and the temperature of the right environment increases, with a net effect that equates to the transfer of heat from a cold body to a hot body, in violation of the second law of thermodynamics. Astonishing! It will be true, it will not be true, how much the action of the little devil can be considered without consumption of external energy, how much this transfer process can be considered spontaneous, the second law of thermodynamics is falsified or not, there has been a macroscopic violation ?! … Yes, no, maybe! The doubt, the torment, the true, the false, the ambiguous … ha ha ha ha ha hahaha hahahaha … Maxwell no longer reasoned, did not sleep anymore, always in the clouds, did not eat anymore, losing weight visibly, his health continued to worsen. On November 5, 1879, at age 48, he died. They said for a tumour to his abdomen. Of course, for respecting his privacy I cannot tell you if he is here with us or elsewhere. But after Maxwell I continued with the trick, with many other suitable subjects, luckily there is no shortage of them. It is my current job. What? It disturbs you and confuses you that I speak of current job for both Maxwell, who died in 1879, the year incidentally of the birth of Einstein, and for the present? But have I not told you that your time is different from mine? Our infernal time unfolds horizontally, it is everlasting. I have been doing this new job for just a few moments.
Pleased to meet you / Hope you guess my name / But what’s puzzling you / Is the nature of my game / … / Just as every cop is a criminal / And all the sinners saints / As heads is tails / Just call me Lucifer / ‘Cause I’m in need of some restraint / (who who, who who) / So if you meet me / Have some courtesy / Have some sympathy, and some taste / (woo woo) / Use all your well-learned politesse / Or I’ll lay your soul to waste, um yeah / (woo woo, woo woo).