🚀 go-pugleaf

Thermodynamics: the first ever ideology masquerading as science:

http://web.mit.edu/keenansymposium/overview/background/index.html
Arthur Eddington (THE IDEOLOGUE): "The law that entropy always
increases, holds, I think, the SUPREME POSITION among the laws of
Nature. If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the
universe is in disagreement with Maxwell's equations—then so much the
worse for Maxwell's equations. If it is found to be contradicted by
observation—well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes.
But if your theory is found to be against the second law of
thermodynamics, I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to
collapse in deepest humiliation."

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00000313/
Jos Uffink (THE SCIENTIST): "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."

http://www.worldscibooks.com/chemistry/etextbook/6469/6469_preface.pdf
Arieh Ben-Naim (THE SCIENTIST fights with THE IDEOLOGUE): "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...."

http://bip.cnrs-mrs.fr/bip10/valevfaq.htm
Athel Cornish-Bowden (THE IDEOLOGUE): "Reading Mr Valev’s postings to
the BTK-MCA and other news groups and trying to answer all the
nonsense contained in them incurs the risk of being so time-consuming
that it takes over one’s professional time completely, leaving none
for more profitable activities. On the other hand, not answering them
incurs the even greater risk that some readers of the news group may
think that his points are unanswerable and that THERMODYNAMICS,
kinetics, catalysis etc. rest on as fragile a foundation as he
pretends....There is probably no law in science that has been tested
so thoroughly, by so many people, over such a long period. (Why?
Because lots of people would like it to be wrong, and if they could
find a loophole it might well make them very rich; as Benno ter Kuile
pointed out, an instant Nobel prize would be only a minor part of the
rewards). None of them has been able to disprove it, so the only
reasonable interpretation for the reasonable person is that it is
true. Mr Valev thinks otherwise, and there was a great deal of
discussion of this during May to September 1997, during which period
Mr Valev’s scheme for tangling the threads was so successful that you
will have great difficulty trying to follow any of the arguments.
Suffice it to say that if Mr Valev really believed what he was saying
he would not be writing nonsense on this news group, he would be
building the machine that would make him the richest man in Bulgaria
(or even the world)."

http://www.beilstein-institut.de/bozen2004/proceedings/CornishBowden/CornishBowden.htm
Athel Cornish-Bowden (THE SCIENTIST fights with THE IDEOLOGUE): "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."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com