🚀 go-pugleaf

On Jan 21, 4:46 am, "rayoha...@yahoo.com.ar" <juanp...@gmail.com>
wrote in sci.physics:
> On Jan 20, 10:21 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 18, 2:58 pm, blackboab <blackb...@gmail.com> wrote in
> > sci.physics:
>
> > > The second law of thermodynics says that the direction of time is
> > > dictated by the increase of entropy,.
>
> > Does it? Why don't you read Jos Uffink's paper:
>
> > http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00000313/
> > Jos Uffink: "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."
>
> > Jos Uffink: http://www.phys.uu.nl/igg/jos/
>
> > Pentcho Valev
> > pva...@yahoo.com
>
> i had looked that article. it is interesting, but any consideration of
> thermodynamics that not relate this to statistical mechanics seems to
> me out of target. and it get lost in mathematical considerations about
> things as for example
> when a process is irreversible or not. it get lost, because if you not
> look at the microscopic level, then you cannot look for a basis from
> which assume good sense. take a look to the article and u will see
> that.

You mean there is no "good sense" in classical thermodynamics?
Ironically, the alleged STRENGTH of that science was that it was
PHENOMENOLOGICAL, that is, it did not have to deal with the
microscopic level and yet it could give, through rigorous deduction,
valuable results. But you can verify this. Take a look at Clausius
1850 deduction of the original version of the second law of
thermodynamics: "It is this maximum of work which must be compared
with the heat transferred. When this is done it appears that there is
in fact ground for asserting, with Carnot, that it depends only on the
quantity of the heat transferred and on the temperatures t and tau of
the two bodies A and B, but not on the nature of the substance by
means of which the work is done.":

http://web.lemoyne.edu/~giunta/Clausius.html
"Ueber die bewegende Kraft der Warme" 1850 Clausius: "It is this
maximum of work which must be compared with the heat transferred. When
this is done it appears that there is in fact ground for asserting,
with Carnot, that it depends only on the quantity of the heat
transferred and on the temperatures t and tau of the two bodies A and
B, but not on the nature of the substance by means of which the work
is done.....If we now suppose that there are two substances of which
the one can produce more work than the other by the transfer of a
given amount of heat, or, what comes to the same thing, needs to
transfer less heat from A to B to produce a given quantity of work, we
may use these two substances alternately by producing work with one of
them in the above process. At the end of the operations both bodies
are in their original condition; further, the work produced will have
exactly counterbalanced the work done, and therefore, by our former
principle, the quantity of heat can have neither increased nor
diminished. The only change will occur in the distribution of the
heat, since more heat will be transferred from B to A than from A to
B, and so on the whole heat will be transferred from B to A. By
repeating these two processes alternately it would be possible,
without any expenditure of force or any other change, to transfer as
much heat as we please from a cold to a hot body, and this is not in
accord with the other relations of heat, since it always shows a
tendency to equalize temperature differences and therefore to pass
from hotter to colder bodies."

If Clausius deduction is invalid (try to discover why it IS invalid),
then you are right: there is no "good sense" in classical
thermodynamics.

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com