🚀 go-pugleaf

Postscientists know no limits. They would never verify, step by step,
the deductive chain that has produced perhaps the most idiotic concept
in the history of science, the concept of entropy. They can only
develop the idiocy and make the destruction of human rationality
irreversible:

http://www.physorg.com/news170586562.html
"Entropy can decrease, according to a new proposal - but the process
would destroy any evidence of its existence, and erase any memory an
observer might have of it. It sounds like the plot to a weird sci-fi
movie, but the idea has recently been suggested by theoretical
physicist Lorenzo Maccone, currently a visiting scientist at MIT, in
an attempt to solve a longstanding paradox in physics."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

> http://www.beilstein-institut.de/bozen2004/proceedings/CornishBowden/CornishBowden.htm
> Athel Cornish-Bowden: "The concept of entropy was introduced to
> thermodynamics by Clausius, who deliberately chose an obscure term for
> it, wanting a word based on Greek roots that would sound similar to
> "energy". In this way he hoped to have a word that would mean the same
> to everyone regardless of their language, and, as Cooper [2] remarked,
> he succeeded in this way in finding a word that meant the same to
> everyone: NOTHING. From the beginning it proved a very difficult
> concept for other thermodynamicists, even including such accomplished
> mathematicians as Kelvin and Maxwell; Kelvin, indeed, despite his own
> major contributions to the subject, never appreciated the idea of
> entropy [3]. The difficulties that Clausius created have continued to
> the present day, with the result that a fundamental idea that is
> absolutely necessary for understanding the theory of chemical
> equilibria continues to give trouble, not only to students but also to
> scientists who need the concept for their work."
>
> http://www.worldscibooks.com/chemistry/etextbook/6469/6469_preface.pdf
> Arieh Ben-Naim: "I believe that the time is ripe to acknowledge that
> the term entropy, as originally coined by Clausius, is an unfortunate
> choice. Moreover, it is also a misleading term both in its meaning in
> ancient and in contemporary Greek. On this matter, I cannot do any
> better than Leon Cooper (1968). Cooper cites the original passage from
> Clausius: in choosing the word "Entropy," Clausius wrote: "I prefer
> going to the ancient languages for the names of important scientific
> quantities, so that they mean the same thing in all living tongues. I
> propose, accordingly, to call S the entropy of a body, after the Greek
> word "transformation." I have designedly coined the word entropy to be
> similar to energy, for these two quantities are so analogous in their
> physical significance, that an analogy of denominations seems to be
> helpful." Right after quoting Clausius' explanation on his reasons for
> the choice of the word "Entropy," Cooper commented: "By doing this,
> rather than extracting a name from the body of the current language
> (say: lost heat), he succeeded in coining a word that meant the same
> thing to everybody: nothing." I fully agree with Coopers comment;
> however, I have two additional comments, and contrary to Cooper, I
> venture into taking the inevitable conclusion: First, I agree that
> "entropy means the same thing to everybody: nothing." But more than
> that, entropy is also a misleading term...."
>
> The sad truth about thermodynamics:
>
> http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00000313/
> Jos Uffink: "The historian of science and mathematician Truesdell made
> a detailed study of the historical development of thermodynamics in
> the period 1822-1854. He characterises the theory, even in its present
> state, as 'a dismal swamp of obscurity' and 'a prime example to show
> that physicists are not exempt from the madness of crowds'. He is
> outright cynical about the respect with which nonmathematicians treat
> the Second Law: "Clausius verbal statement of the second law makes no
> sense [. . . ]. All that remains is a Mosaic prohibition; a century of
> philosophers and journalists have acclaimed this commandment; a
> century of mathematicians have shuddered and averted their eyes from
> the unclean. Seven times in the past thirty years have I tried to
> follow the argument Clausius offers [. . . ] and seven times has it
> blanked and gravelled me. [. . . ] I cannot explain what I cannot
> understand." From this anthology it emerges that although many
> prominent physicists are firmly convinced of, and express admiration
> for the Second Law, there are also serious complaints, especially from
> mathematicians, about a lack of clarity and rigour in its formulation.
> At the very least one can say that the Second Law suffers from an
> image problem: its alleged eminence and venerability is not perceived
> by everyone who has been exposed to it. What is it that makes this
> physical law so obstreperous that every attempt at a clear formulation
> seems to have failed? Is it just the usual sloppiness of physicists?
> Or is there a deeper problem? And what exactly is the connection with
> the arrow of time and irreversibility? Could it be that this is also
> just based on bluff? Perhaps readers will shrug their shoulders over
> these questions. Thermodynamics is obsolete; for a better
> understanding of the problem we should turn to more recent,
> statistical theories. But even then the questions we are about to
> study have more than a purely historical importance. The problem of
> reproducing the Second Law, perhaps in an adapted version, remains one
> of the toughest, and controversial problems in statistical
> physics.....This summary leads to the question whether it is fruitful
> to see irreversibility or time-asymmetry as the essence of the second
> law. Is it not more straightforward, in view of the unargued
> statements of Kelvin, the bold claims of Clausius and the strained
> attempts of Planck, to give up this idea? I believe that Ehrenfest-
> Afanassjewa was right in her verdict that the discussion about the
> arrow of time as expressed in the second law of the thermodynamics is
> actually a RED HERRING."