🚀 go-pugleaf

On Jan 21, 3:52 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 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
> pva...@yahoo.com

no, classical thermodynamics has sense, it is a very good theory, but
it has no sense when u try to link it with arrow time, that is another
story, I had expressed wrong (the word this sings to a preferred arrow
time direction, sorry for that), and u then had a bad interpretation,
it is my fault, read entirely what i´d writed.

best regards
rayohauno