🚀 go-pugleaf

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00000313/
Jos Uffink: "In the eyes of many modern physicists, the theory has
acquired a somewhat dubious status. They regard classical
thermodynamics as a relic from a bygone era... Indeed, the view that
thermodynamics is obsolete is so common that many physicists use the
phrase 'Second Law of Thermodynamics' to denote some counterpart of
this law in the kinetic theory of gases or in statistical mechanics."

In less euphemistic words, classical (phenomenological) thermodynamics
is dead. An independent proof: at the conference "Thermodynamics 2009"
organized by the Royal Society of Chemistry the incredibly serious
fundamental problems of thermodynamics that force scientists to
advance characteristics such as "dismal swamp of obscurity", "prime
example to show that physicists are not exempt from the madness of
crowds" and "red herring" are not even hinted at:

http://thermodynamics2009.googlepages.com/about
"As the science of energy and its effects on the material world,
thermodynamics holds one of the keys to meeting the challenges that
our modern society faces. Data and models that describe the
thermodynamic behavior of materials are essential to the development
of sustainable technologies and products. Although its origins date to
the scientific revolution itself, thermodynamics has been evolving
rapidly in recent years. This is partially because it has benefited
from the advances in numerical simulation, which helps complement
experiments and theory. Thanks to these new developments,
thermodynamics now spans a large range of domains: the life sciences,
with their complex supramolecular arrangements; nano-materials, where
short-range interactions are dominant; complex fluids, such as liquid
crystals, electrolytes and ionic fluids; critical behavior and
extraction processes; the behavior of materials in extreme conditions,
and many more. The Thermodynamics 2009 conference will bring together
researchers from all over the world who are interested in these topics
and in the three main tools currently used to explore them:
Experimental investigations....Statistical Mechanics and Equation of
State modeling....molecular simulation."

The incredibly serious fundamental problems of thermodynamics:

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00000313/
"The Second Law made its appearance in physics around 1850, but a half
century later it was already surrounded by so much confusion that the
British Association for the Advancement of Science decided to appoint
a special committee with the task of providing clarity about the
meaning of this law. However, its final report (Bryan 1891) did not
settle the issue. Half a century later, the physicist/philosopher
Bridgman still complained that there are almost as many formulations
of the second law as there have been discussions of it (Bridgman 1941,
p. 116). And even today, the Second Law remains so obscure that it
continues to attract new efforts at clarification. A recent example is
the work of Lieb and Yngvason (1999)......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' (1980, p. 6) and 'a prime example to show that
physicists are not exempt from the madness of crowds' (ibid. p.
8).......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.....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.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/6469.html
A FAREWELL TO ENTROPY by Arieh Ben-Naim (The Hebrew University,
Israel)
"The principal message of this book is that thermodynamics and
statistical mechanics will benefit from replacing the unfortunate,
misleading and mysterious term "entropy" with a more familiar,
meaningful and appropriate term..."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com