🚀 go-pugleaf

> Some day physical chemistry professors may realize that "students
> learning by rote" is good (makes professors' life serene) but
> "students thinking critically" is better.

Teaching for many years something that neither you nor your students
understand is not an easy task: sometimes even hardliners collapse and
make confessions:

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."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com