CBR, Dark Matter, Cosmology, Entropy and a New Kinetic Theory
Below is a post on taking a new look at many topics. It’s from Kent Mayhew. I don’t necessarily agree or disagree with his views, but CNPS welcomes new ideas on thermodynamics, so please comment and let us know your thoughts.
This blog is in honour of Paul Marmet (1932-2005). He was a Canadian physicist who had original constructive logic founded ideas and as such he was truly ostracized by his peers for not towing the line. Marmets papers can be found online:
1) http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/info/author.html
2) http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/
In my previous blogs & papers I have basically argued that entropy is nothing more than a mathematical contrivance, therefore in its fundamental context, entropy should not apply to cosmology. Concerning cosmology I personally do not know whether or not the Big Bang happened, although I was certainly taught that Hubble’s contemplation was the only way to think (at least pass the course). I am sure that there are those in the NPA who feel strongly one way or another. The one thing that I do believe is that Wilson’s discovery of Cosmic Background Radiation (CBR) may very likely have nothing to do with the Big Bang. Let me try to explain.
Early in the 21st century, me the simpleton, had gotten to the point that I suspected that scientist loved to complicate our simple realties. In that light, I remember pondering that CBR may be nothing more black body radiation of dark matter, which implies that dark matter may not be all that mysterious, after all. Specifically dark matter might be nothing more than cold matter, so cold that its mean temperature is 3 degree Kelvin, hence it is optically dark. At this point I had no notion as too what constituted dark matter, but just that gut feeling.
A few years ago, I began reading Marmet’s papers, and realized that Paul Marmet was way ahead of me in such thought i.e. “From astronomical observations we observe that most matter in the universe is in the gas phase at 3 K.” “We show that the 3 K radiation spectrum observed is simply the Planck’s radiation emitted by gaseous matter at 3 K. “ [Paul Marmet “The Origin of the 3 K radiation” Apeiron, Vol.2. Nr. January 1995]
Marmet’s notion that CBR was nothing more than gaseous matter’s blackbody radiation made me smile, and wish that he was still alive.
The traditional idea is that CBR is the 3 K radiation, which is believed by many to be a remnant of the Big Bang. In Big bang theorization the early universe was too dense and hot, hence light could not pass through it. Approximately 15 billion yrs ago radiation decoupled from matter, meaning our expanding universe reached a state (around 3000 K) where it was sufficiently transparent that light could travel cosmic distances without significant absorption.
And, it is argued that as the universe expands its entropy increases and this equally applies to radiation hence the temperature associated with the big bang has resulted in a temperature decrease of radiation to the point that it resembles black body radiation of a 3 degree Kelvin body. Those who have read my previous blogs will know that I am not a big fan of any such entropy based conceptualization. Interestingly, Marmet further argued that the big bang is similar to creation theory, in that it may be more of a tale rather than a scientific theory based upon a combination of observation and constructive logic.
Where Paul Marmet was way ahead of me was his consideration that our universe is filled with atomic hydrogen (H). “Atomic hydrogen is composed of an electron electrically bound to a proton forming neutral hydrogen. Protons, just as electrons have a fundamental property called “spin”. In a hydrogen atom, those spins are coupled either parallel or anti parallel. The interesting point is that a transition from a parallel to an anti parallel coupling of spins in hydrogen (and vice versa) takes place when hydrogen is emitting (or absorbing) electromagnetic radiation at a wavelength of 21 cm. Consequently, one can determine the amount of atomic hydrogen H in the universe by measuring the amount of radiation absorbed (or emitted) at 21 cm. The actual observation of the 21 cm. line proves that there is a very abundant amount of atomic hydrogen in the universe.”
If I understand Marmet’s papers correctly, then his above conclusion is that the CBR is nothing more a result of hydrogen molecule transitory spins. Herein I depart from Marmet’s thought process. To me the simpler solution remained: CBR is nothing more than cold matter absorbing the surrounding thermal energy and then radiating it as 3 degree K blackbody. Of course this requires intermolecular bonding and vibrations, similar to that found in all condensed matter. Importantly, Marmet pointed out that atomic hydrogen (H) is unstable, and given the chance over sufficient time they will form more stable molecular hydrogen (H2). This has all been backed by observations in spectroscopy.
Marmet further argues that the claim that ionizing radiation will prevent significant quantities of H2 from forming in space is not valid. Marmet points out that if radiation decoupled from matter, then there is no reason to believe that it would ionize significant quantities of H2.
In so far as my way of thinking, the simplest solution is that stable molecular hydrogen has vibrational energy and the temperature associated with these vast quantities of molecular hydrogen is 3 degree Kelvin, therefore this vibrational energy between the hydrogen molecular bond now explains CBR.
The question now becomes why would such a simple argument be blatantly ignored by the Paul Marmet and/or other powers within the sciences. Well beyond such a simple conceptualization of mysterious dark matter, the real show stopper lay in kinetic theory. Let me explain (sorry this will take a few pages).
Problematic Kinetic Theory
On a personal note/sidetrack: Now the following is based upon a paper that I am considering publishing, so I do not know how much I should discuss herein. I will say this much, I am having trouble financing my publications hence I am actually trying to get an alliance with a research group associated with Gerald Pollack (who is a wonderfully open minded individual.) This is a long shot that I really doubt will happen by my paper on kinetic theory was presented to this group. Furthermore, I also self-published the correct kinetic theory equations in my first edition book but choose a poor analysis, and this has been rewritten in my hopefully to be published sometime revised edition of may infamous book that noone will ever read.
Back to our discussion. From, my paper: Concerning “The conceptualization of a gaseous system’s kinematics originated in the writings of the 19th century greats. In 1875, Maxwell wrote:
“The kinetic energy of the molecule may be regarded as made up of two parts–that of the mass of the molecule supposed to be concentrated at its centre of mass, and that of the motions of the parts relative to the centre of mass. The first is called the energy of translation, the second that of rotation and vibration. The sum of these is the whole energy of motion of the molecule.
The pressure of the gas depends, as we have seen, on the energy of translation alone. The specific heat depends on the rate at which the whole energy, kinetic and potential, increases as the temperature rises.
Clausius had long ago pointed out that the ratio of the increment of the whole energy to that of the energy of translation may be determined if we know by experiment the ratio of the specific heat at constant pressure to that at constant volume.
He did not, however, attempt to determine à priori the ratio of the two parts of the energy, though he suggested, as an extremely probable hypothesis, that the average values of the two parts of the energy in a given substance always adjust themselves to the same ratio. He left the numerical value of this ratio to be determined by experiment.
In 1860 I investigated the ratio of the two parts of the energy on the hypothesis that the molecules are elastic bodies of invariable form. I found, to my great surprise, that whatever be the shape of the molecules, provided they are not perfectly smooth and spherical, the ratio of the two parts of the energy must be always the same, the two parts being in fact equal. This result is confirmed by the researches of Boltzmann, who has worked out the general case of a molecule having n variables.”
It is interesting to note Maxwell’s surprise at the ratio of energies (the translational motion and the rotational and/or vibrational) being equal, as not even he expected this traditionally accepted result. This was followed by the work of Boltzmann with his conceptualization of statistical ensembles, led to the 20th century understanding of the determination of molecular energy using statistical analysis and equipartition. It is currently accepted that the specific heat of gases can be best explained in terms of equipartition theory, and degrees of freedom.
The law of equipartition states that the total energy of a gas is equally distributed among all of its degrees of freedom. Equipartition theorem is based upon the energy of a system being defined by a set of f generalized coordinates and their corresponding generalized momentum. “ End of part of my paper
The full traditional analysis can be found in many texts. To summarize, although the logic of traditional kinetic theory was questioned by Maxwell, it’s application was fully endorsed and seemingly reinforced by the law of equipartition. What is truly interesting is that this boldly embraced our traditional analysis, which BTW has many accepted exceptions. Two fundamental ones being:
1) A monatomic gas has no rotational energy i.e. only translational energy
2) A diatomic gas has no real vibrational energy. Specifically “For a diatomic gas the accepted degrees of freedom are: three degrees of freedom associated with translational energy, two degrees of freedom with rotation and one degree accepted for vibration. Based upon this one would expect that isometric molar heat capacity for a diatomic gas is 6R/2. However, the empirically proven value is 5R/2, which has led to the vibrational degree of freedom being disregarded, thus enabling the theoretical value to equate to the empirical values.”
The two above exceptions certainly make traditional theory fit empirical data but I invite anyone to explain the logic behind such thought. Certainly any ball/object in motion can have both rotational and translational energy. So what makes a gas molecule any different? And why would anyone buy into the concept that polyatomic molecules all have vibrational energy with the exception being diatomic molecules.
I have rewritten kinetic theory, but it is a tad lengthy for a blog. I threw out the degrees of freedom argument and realized that both the translational and rotational energy of the gaseous molecules must be derived from the same vibrational energy of the wall’s molecules that surround/interact the gas. This is no different than hitting a ball in any sport. Consider golf, if you hit the ball correctly then the majority of the energy of the ball (after impact) will be translational. Conversely, if you hit the ball poorly with the same force, then the golf will have a lower translational energy and a higher rotational energy but its total energy can be the same as it was when you hit the ball correctly
The consequence of the above is that kinetic theory should be rewritten. Interestingly when it is done then the theory will match empirical data more closely than current degrees of freedom based kinetic theory does.
And my new kinetic theory equation is basically
E = NkT(n”+1/2)
Where n” signifies the number of atoms in each gas molecule which we shall call the polyatomic number. Note this energy can be shown to be the basis of the isometric specific heat of N gaseous molecules.
The net result can be clearly seen in Graph 1. It clearly shows that my equations for both isobaric (Cp) and isometric (Cv) specific heats of gases closely follows that of accepted empirical data, while the traditional theoretical accepted equations has a completely different slope when compared to the same accepted empirical results.
As a final point the difference between isobaric specific heat (constant pressure) and isometric specific heat (constant volume) is this. For the isometric case the Earth’s atmosphere is not displaced. Conversely for the isobaric case, the system of gas expands at constant pressure as it is heated, hence the surrounding Earth’s atmosphere is upwardly displaced, hence work is done onto the surrounding atmosphere. It is easy to show that this means that the isobaric specific heat is greater than the isometric specific heat by PdV that being the work done onto the atmosphere. And in the case of a mole of molecules this equates to the universal gas constant (R) and for a solitary molecule this would be Boltzmann’s constant (k). In other words Boltzmann’s constant and the ideal gas constants become a representation of a system’s ability to do work as a function of temperature in a given gravitational field.
Now let us return to our discussion concerning CBR.
Back to CBR
We previously discussed that Marmet attributed CBR to hydrogen spins. The reason is most likely that he adhered to degrees of freedom (traditional) kinetic theory, in which case for a diatomic hydrogen molecule (molecular hydrogen) would have no vibrational energy. I have discussed that why traditional kinetic theory is flawed and pointed out that vibrational energy exists in all polyatomic molecules, including diatomic ones. Accordingly, molecular hydrogen (H2) has a vibrational energy. The real point for this blog is that once we rewrite kinetic theory then we have can now understand that Marmet’s molecular hydrogen (H2) will absorb and radiate its surrounding blackbody radiation.
Accepting the above, then we can now consider that Marmet’s molecular hydrogen and my new kinetic theory can explain CBR. If so, then CBR may no longer have anything to do with the Big Bang. This does not mean that the Big Bang did or did not happen
But it does mean that:
1) Entropy based arguments concerning the remnants of the big bang and CBR maybe another case of mankind complicating the simple.
2) Dark matter maybe nothing more than molecular hydrogen (H2) as Marmet has proposed. This lends itself to dark matter pervading our universe and being nothing more than matter, which is so cold hence that it is optically dark. Of course such considerations concerning dark matter may very well not be palatable to those who envision dark matter as a complex mystical entity. It does allow for things like intergalactic speeds increasing rather than slowing.
Sincerely Kent W. Mayhew
Side Notes: I am not sure if anyone is interested but I wrote a book that I was hoping would lead to people rethinking thermodynamics. I am currently rewriting this book and am looking for assistance. If you know of anyone interested in reading and possibly commenting assistance or anything please let me know. It requires common sense and an open mind first and foremost.
Also I would like it if someone interested in kinetic theory but who has no affiliation or vested interest in current kinetic theory, to read and comment upon my paper concerning kinetic theory.
I can be contacted thru my website www.newthermodynamics.com under heading contact.
Leaving aside, the more speculative and contentious areas and focusing on what the author himself acknowledges, i.e. the presence of dark matter in our galaxy and the location of our tiny blue planet in the middle of the zone where the Milky Way galaxy rotation curve suggests the stuff will be most abundant, (1) is it inconceivable for some of this stuff to have been gravitational bound to Earth in 1887? (2) as with all matter, is it not to be expected for the density of such bound matter to be higher nearer Earth surface and to be more rarefied with altitude?
I elaborate on these two questions and the implications in my e-book, Hypotheses Fingo, chapters 4: The dark matter hypothesis and Special relativity, and in chapter 5: How General relativity mimics the dark matter hypothesis, available in pdf (http://bookstore.bookcountry.com/Products/SKU-001095545/Hypotheses-Fingo.aspx ) and other formats (http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/31823102-hypotheses-fingo).
In summary, an Earth bound matter medium would prevent the observation of interference phenomena and differences in light arrival times in the Michelson-Morley experiment as the source, receptor and the optical medium are all in the same frame of motion (as Galileo illustrated with his ship analogy). With sound waves, Air too being gravitationally bound does same and does not allow us use sound to discern Earth motion.
If the density of the matter medium varies with altitude, as can be expected, denser nearer the surface and less dense with altitude as its density merges into the galactic background density (air density similarly varies), this must have observable effect on light propagation. Among other implications,
(a) light speed will be slower on Earth surface (299,792,458m/s) and faster at higher altitude higher. In GR speak one can say clocks run slower nearer gravity and faster at an altitude. This is experimentally borne out in the Pound and Rebka experiment, Pioneer Anomaly and the Gravity Probe A experiment. At higher altitude light speed can approach a value 299,792,458.2087m/s and as demonstrated in my paper and also in the e-book this gives the observed bluish tinge to the redshift observed with the Pioneer Anomaly.
(b) light grazing a gravitational object will show refraction consequent on the slower speed.
Unfortunately, dark matter only came into reckoning in the 1930s long after Special and General relativity. The acknowledgement of dark matter will be a blessing to critical thinkers and turn out to be the nemesis of establishment.
Regards,
Akinbo
Thanks Akinbo
Not to much about what I am speculating.
As far as answering what you write, I am not sure what to say. I have not really studied nor discussed with anyone where this dark matter [molecular hydrogen (H2)] would be located. I would love to hear what others think about locations for it.
I guess I was thinking in terms of far away, possibly away from our solar system. My gut feeling based thoughts would be that in a solar system such molecular hydrogen would have become part of a planet or the Sun due to gravitational attraction. I guess it could behave as a gas and be layered like our atmosphere, but that not how I envision dark matter
I was thinking in terms of it being outside our solar system, but not necessarily outside of our galaxy. I was also wondering if it existed outside of galaxies and perhaps far enough away could it account for the gravitational field responsible for any galaxies that are considered to be accelerating apart, rather than decelerating as classical consideration of gravity would impose on a big bang scenario. Note: I am not saying I believe in big bang because i just do not know what to think there.
Thanks again Kent
Hello Kent,
Thanks for your volunteering your comments even if not directly related to thermodynamics. I have visited your website and welcome your work in clarifying entropy, a quite nebulous concept. This post is in three parts. Let me start with the first two which are more in your area of interest. You may ignore the third. Let me also mention that to some extent I believe the universe has not been eternally existing, i.e. not of infinite duration so we may differ on that point.
(1) This equation puzzles me in respect of its cosmological implication, dS = PdV + dE/T, where S is entropy, P is pressure, V is volume, E is energy and T is temperature. I take the universe as having no unyielding boundaries that can give rise to pressure like a cup, so for a universe we may write
dS = dE/T
It is said that when you drop a hot piece of metal having energy of say 100 joules in a cup of water at say 30K, the entropy of the cup of water will increase by 100/30 (3.33 J/K. The higher the temperature at the time energy is introduced to the system, the lower the entropy increase and vice versa, the lower the temperature, the higher the increase in entropy. What happens mathematically and physically if energy was introduced into a system when the temperature at the time of energy introduction is absolute zero (T = 0)?
(2) You have said you may not believe in the Big bang so you may refrain from volunteering an opinion, but I wonder what would happen to your concept of entropy if the mass of the universe has been increasing with radius as can be discerned from the energy densities and temperatures at different epochs? For instance the energy densities and temperatures suggest that at 10-35s after the Big bang, the universe had a mass 10^-8kg, at three minutes, a mass of 10^37kg and today a mass about 10^52kg (based on observed flatness).
(3) On dark matter, the primary evidence for its existence stems from the Newtonian equation, v = √GM/r. The ‘v’ of outlying stars from certain ‘r’ are so high that unless Newton’s gravity and this equation was wrong there must be more ‘M’ than that which we see shining as stars and luminous clouds of gas. Our sun is located at a location where this unseen mass, M appears abundant. Would it not be very special and an exceptional coincidence for this abundant dark matter said to make up about 90% of our galaxy’s mass to be everywhere else but outside our solar system? Our sun orbits the centre of our galaxy at about 225km/s and based on this high speed and given v = √GM/r, some astronomers take the sun as a mere tracker for the movement of dark matter in its neighborhood. If so, can a tiny blue planet dragged along effortlessly by the sun be exempted from gravitationally interacting with the dark matter if it is the dark matter that is dictating how the sun moves?
I agree with your gut feeling that dark matter would have been present like other matter when planets were forming, would it be more in the core or gravitationally bound in the planetary atmosphere (by its nature of interacting only gravitationally and not interacting electromagnetically to form ions and dense matter)? If this planetary bound dark matter explains the null finding of Michelson and Morley, and further its density variation with height, the light phenomena associated with General relativity, why then should we wish it to be ” far enough away” as you say?
*Note that I am not saying the dark matter is cold hydrogen. These are secondary considerations. The majority consensus today is that dark matter does not appear to interact electromagnetically, only gravitationally. I don’t know if cold hydrogen fits that criteria. You can google “images for milky way galaxy rotation curve” to see our sun and planets location. You can also see these two papers, Dark Matter in the Solar System, by Xu and Siegel (Preprint arXiv:0806.3767) and Placing Direct Limits on the Mass of Earth-Bound Dark Matter by S.L. Adler, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 41, 412002 (2008) (Preprint arXiv:0808.0899) to see the possibility that dark matter may literally be in our backyard.
Regards,
Akinbo
Dear Akinbo
The way I understand traditional thermodynamics is that work is related to entropy via the simple relation:
W=TdS=dE+PdV 1)
Entropy is also considered to be related by another simple isothermal relation to a systems energy as you, Akinbo state:
dS=dE/T 2)
Certainly 2) is limited to isothermal processes.
What bothers me about 2) is this. Why not simply replace entropy change with heat capacity, because in 2) entropy is used as if it is a systems heat capacity, for an isometric heat capacity (Cv) we might write:
dE = (Cv)dT or if you prefer Cv=dE/dT 3)
Now what is the real difference between 2) and 3). Well 3) is not limited to isothermal processes because we have a “dT” in it, while 2) is clearly only valid for isothermal processes.
Can I now say that entropy is the specific heat for isothermal processes? Well I have never seen it stated as such, so I guess that the answer is no.
Entropy is also considered as “the randomness of molecules in incessant motion” – that being a 20th description probably based upon Boltzmann’s consideration. And the there is
Lamberts 21st century consideration of entropy being “the dispersal of a systems energy”
And of course neither of these English language based considerations of entropy seemingly have anything to do with entropy change stated in 2) or 3).
Okay traditional thermodynamics dodges this lack of clarity with
S-kIn(number of possible states) 4)
Although the lack of clarity has been dodged nothing about entropy’s definition is particularly clear at least from a stance of traditional thermodynamics.
Now back to what you are saying Akinbo
Drop a piece of hot metal in a cup and based upon 2) the entropy in the cup increases. But 2) is for isothermal processes. Am I to really think that the piece of hot metal does not increase the system’s temperature? No way!!!! Well what if it is a small piece of metal, then the temperature increase may be small. If it is hard to measure small, well I say get a better thermometer because the system is certainly hotter.
So ask what relevance does dS=dE/T 2) to a cup of water and hot metal? Would equation 3) dE = (Cv)dT not be a better equation. Sadly 3) is not particularly
Romantic equation. It possesses no notion of randomness.
Consider the universe. If the universe is expanding as big bang states. Then fine it’s mean energy is dispersed as it grows or if you prefer its energy density decreases as its volume increases (this is ignoring the possible existence of dark energy permeating all volumes of space). So we can use the dispersal of energy to explain why the temperature of an expanding universe should be decreasing. According no need for the universe to have an entropy, and more importantly entropy is not needed to explain what we may be witnessing.
Now does dS=dE/T have anything to do with the universe. Well first of all it assumes that the universes mean temperature is constant over time, because it is certainly an isothermal relation. Is that how you see the universe Akinbo?
I do not see the universe as an isothermal entity. Perhaps if all volumes has elusive dark energy contained within it then it could actually be an isothermal entity. I mean as the universe expands it obtains more energy (from where, who knows) and remains isothermal. I am too much of a simpleton to adhere to such a notion but if that is what you want to claim I am in no position to state otherwise.
Akinbo states: “What happens mathematically and physically if energy was introduced into a system when the temperature at the time of energy introduction is absolute zero (T = 0)? “ Well my gut says that this is not an isothermal process so you should use equation 3) and not isothermal equation 2).
Concerning akinbo’s (2) Me not knowing whether the big bang happened. And how the energy densities have changed. I am sorry akimbo but I remain a simpleton. What you are stating sounds possible if dark matter and dark energy exist and are formed as the fabric of the universe expands. I leave that to those who are truly smarter than me, like I said I am a simpleton seeking simple answers.
Concerning (3) I trust that the majority of people including you Akinbo are much better versed on dark matter then me the simpleton. What I wrote is based upon this. Mt thoughts that if dark matter exists, then what sort of signature would it have. And I see CBR as the most likely solution. So then I ask why am I the only one thinking this and I later am introduced to Paul Marmet’s papers. And since I had rewritten kinetic theory (but not published it, in part due to my finances) and realized that in my kinetic theory that molecular hydrogen (H2) would have vibrational energy while traditional kinetic theory says diatomic gases are the exception to the rule hence H2 does not have vibrational energy. I just thought what I say about kinetic theory and my gut says about dark matter and combine this with Marmet’s thought, then there may just be a solution to this mess.
Of course I grant you akimbo that you have thought through the very nature of dark matter more than I have and I hope to one day understand it as well as you might.
Now in your opinion akimbo, would molecular hydrogen act electromagnetically if it was matter in the far reaches of space whose mean temperature was 3 degrees K. To me the only thing it could possibly do is absorb and radiate blackbody radiation. What else could it do at such cold temperatures. Do you/we really know?
Thanks again Akinbo for your great questions and insights
Kent
Kent,
Perhaps we should chew this a little at a time. I will leave the dark matter subject for now and focus on your area of interest. If energy is introduced into a system, does the entropy of that system increase? If so, what equation can be used to quantify or relate the amount of energy to the amount of entropy increase.
Without pre-empting your answer, given a cup of water, I am of the opinion that the entropy of that cup of water is higher when it is at a temperature of say 50oC, than when at 15oC. Again when at 100oC in the form of steam, the entropy is higher than when at 50oC. Therefore on the surface one can firstly infer that energy introduction results in entropy increase. Secondly, since it requires more energy to raise the cup of water from 15oC to 100oC than for 15oC to 50oC, one can say the more the energy introduced the higher the entropy increase. In all these changes of entropy we may be dealing with the same cup of water.
While I understand your reservations why heat capacity would not have been more appropriate to express Eq.2), what alternative equation do you wish to use to relate energy change to entropy change since it appears energy introduction increases entropy? I will like to know this since you appear more knowledgeable on this subject despite referring to yourself as a simpleton.
But this is the idea I am toying with. Can a supremely wise being find a way to introduce a tiny amount of energy into a system at absolute zero temperature thereby causing an entropy increasing towards an infinite value? The temperature AFTER energy introduction does not remain at absolute zero. But can it strive towards absolute zero so as to obey your isothermal requirement? Is your claim that “Eq.2) is clearly only valid for isothermal processes” sacrosanct without any exception?
Dear Akinbo
The first question you may need to answer is “what is entropy?” No matter I will try to answer you without an answer.
A cup of water : You say entropy is higher at 50 degree than 15 degrees. Ykes.
1) Its temperature is higher
2) Its total thermal energy is higher
3) For that matter its thermal energy density is higher
So what is its entropy? If entropy is something that when multiplied by temperature defines energy i.e. TS. Then now you are saying that both T and S are higher at the same time. Double ykes.
I would prefer to say this. That its thermal energy as defined in terms of its isometric specific heat (Cv) and temperature (T) is higher and to leave entropy out of it. In other words in terms of a constant volume specific heat (Cv), we can write:
Total thermal energy = (Cv)T
And then say who needs entropy. Certainly that would be suffice up until the point of boiling. I mean the amount of energy required to heat the water in the cup is:
Thermal energy required = dE= (Cv)dT
(Sorry but I am using dE and E interchangeably here to signify energy change and/or energy required: I apologize)
Ask yourself Akinbo, what difference does entropy make up until this point. We know everything we need to know using isometric heat capacity and temperature change. Certainly neither its volume nor pressure has changed to any real extent.
And then we reach the boiling point. Say water at 1 atm pressure and 100 degrees celsius. The heating of water is no longer a simple isometric (constant volume) process is it? The reality is that now it requires more energy to raise the temperature during boiling. Why? From experiments we know that the additional energy is equal to: PdV.
In my way of thinking it is the additional energy/work required to lift up our atmosphere’s weight. It can certainly be shown that this would be: PdV. So why not I mean the atmosphere has mass and it is in a gravitational field
Surely the above is the KISS (Keep it simple stupid) answer, once your eyes are opened to its possibility. But then there is our indoctrination that says its all due to entropy, a term with no clarity. So who is right? The simpleton Kent Mayhew or Maxwell, Kelvin, Clausius, Boltzmann and all who have followed in their footsteps? If only we knew what entropy really means.
Akinbo states: “Secondly, since it requires more energy to raise the cup of water from 15oC to 100oC than for 15oC to 50oC”
Yes it does but that answer is best obtained from:
Thermal energy required = dE= (Cv)dT
I mean the greater the temperature change (dT) the greater the energy requirement. Herein we are talking about isometric (constant volume) changes to a system’s energy
Do you need entropy to explain this? Again I ask what does entropy mean when you use it to explain the above? Are you not thinking of entropy as a form of heat capacity? I mean it is either heat capacity or entropy because using both words to describe the same thing really makes arguing against a tad cumbersome. Or do you adhere to Von Neummann’s statement to Shannon that no one really know what entropy is anyhow. And then remain determined to make entropy based arguments. I mean why not this is exactly what traditional thermodynamics does, and that is what we all have been taught, heck you may even have gotten an “A” for doing so.
Akinbo you ask: “Eq.2), what alternative equation do you wish to use to relate energy change to entropy change since it appears energy introduction increases entropy?
I would like to throw entropy out until someone gives me a definition that I can actually argue against. Why not replace entropy with gallackyglobs? As the system’s temperature increases then its gallackyglobs increases. Perhaps you do not know what to say until we get a clear definition of a gallackyglob.
I call myself a simpleton only because I like simple answers that I can sink my teeth into one way or another. I am horrible when it comes to dealing with gallackyglobs unless its new years eve and I have had one too many drinks.
Akinbo asks” Can a supremely wise being find a way to introduce a tiny amount of energy into a system at absolute zero temperature thereby causing an entropy increasing towards an infinite value?”
Again I must ask what is entropy?
One can certainly introduce a tiny amount of energy into any system and increase its thermal energy by an infinitely small amount, so much so that our equipment cannot read any temperature change.
One could argue that it is due to equipment failure, i.e. we need a better thermometer. Of course one could introduce the term gallackyglob to define an infinitesimally small amount of energy that results in an actual energy increase although the system appears isothermal (constant T) to our thermometer.
Then again why not simply make the system infinitely small, with negligible mass and then
Introduce that same infinitely small amount of energy. So long as you had an equally infinitely small thermometer, then in all likelihood you would obtain a readable temperature increase to your infinitely small system. So what have we accomplished beyond providing a sense of scale?
Akinbo asks: “Is your claim that “Eq.2) is clearly only valid for isothermal processes” sacrosanct without any exception?”
Look at it Akinbo : dS=dE/T 2)
I see no “dT” in it. Hence it is an isothermal relation by definition.
Just because we can play the game of scale like I did for gallackyglob for defining an infinitesimally small amount of energy. I could repeat the mind game and replace gallackyglob with entropy if that would make you feel any better.
Sorry I do not mean to be rude, but I am only trying to drive home a point. That being 2) is only exists because our thermometer cannot always read temperature changes even when thermal energy is added to a closed isometric system: This really only happens when the amount of thermal energy is infinitesimally small in comparison to the system or the system is infinitely large in comparison to the thermal energy i.e. a heat bath or sink if you prefer.
And of course isobaric systems are another kettle of fish. Add thermal energy and the system expands hence does work onto the surrounding atmosphere. That work being:
W= PdV. Hence all isometric based arguments concerning temperature and energy input go out the window. Or if you prefer we make the similar arguments and just add PdV
to the amount of energy that is required. How we argue this is really system and surroundings dependent.
Cheers and thanks Akinbo
Kent
To be honest Kent, I can’t fault your very reasonable thermodynamic arguments.
And I like this “In my way of thinking it is the additional energy/work required to lift up our atmosphere’s weight. It can certainly be shown that this would be: PdV. So why not I mean the atmosphere has mass and it is in a gravitational field”. I think I have read somewhere how easy things boil and evaporate in space where there is no atmosphere.
Can you formulate a real life or thought experiment that can distinguish your views from the conventional? If so, that would be nice.
Regards,
Akinbo
*Can the site administrators make Nick’s blogpost visible from the homepage. It no longer appears there on my browser.
Kent,
A few more comments. I agree a lack of clarity on the entropy subject but I don’t agree to equate it with heat capacity or that the traditional thermodynamic formula S-kIn(number of possible states) is a means of dodging the issues. This is why.
Take my cup of water for example, there are so much number of water molecules, H2O in that cup, which given the fixed volume of the cup places a finite limit on the number of possible arrangements in that cup. Number of possible arrangements (W) being mathematically dependent on the number of constituents available and the number of compartments.
Now, if we continue adding energy, and volume is FIXED, eventually our cup of water will become a cup of hydrogen and oxygen molecules. The number of constituents would then have increased in our cup of water and therefore the number of different possible ways of arrangement. If we continue adding energy, we get a cup of protons and electrons, again a significant increase in the number of constituents available for arrangement, and so on till we get to quarks, etc.
Given this scenario, energy introduction can cause an increase in something different from heat capacity, and possibly much more like our nebulous concept entropy.
I am not certain but perhaps, we can write d(klnW) = dE/T in view of what energy introduction can do the number of constituents in a compartment.
If we can so write, a further speculation will then be whether there is a limit to the divisibility of matter. If there is a constraint as to the divisibility, probably after quarks or other structure and there is a maximum speed possible, if energy is added after this what will happen? Will thermodynamic laws force an increase in the volume of the FIXED compartment?
Pardon my speculative post.
Akinbo
Thanks Akinbo
Yes boiling in space is rather easy compared to boiling on earth because there is little to no work required in space. Now we have to watch out how we envision this and again this will come down to scale.
If I am boiling a small amount of water hence produce a small amount of vapour then the pressure change in my outer space facility would be small. By small I mean the amount/volume of vapour is small compared to the facilities volume. In this case I foresee very little work required hence boiling is a low energy process at least compared to here on Earth.
But if the amount of vapour is sufficient to cause a significant pressure change within some rather small facility, then this isometric pressure increase will require work.
You see atmospheric pressure here on Earth is a direct result of the atmosphere’s weight. When we increase the pressure in a vessel it is really similar to increasing the atmosphere’s weight. Thus pressure increases require work.
A real life situation. Think of boiling. Traditional thermodynamics says that the latent heat of vaporization equals the latent heat of condensation. Let us investigate
Consider that work plus changes to intermolecular bonding is required for evaporation/vaporization, while only changes to molecular bonding can be obtained from condensation. In other words the evaporation/vaporization requires work while condensation does not. Note: In an equilibrium situation wherein the same number of molecules are condensing as evaporating, then no work is done because both the pressure and volume of the system remains constant.
Okay lets look at boiling from the traditional perspective some more. Well the entropy increases, that being the randomness of the liquid molecules increases as the mean molecular volume of the boiling molecules increases. And this increase in randomness requires energy/work. And such work is unidirectional cuz the work associated with entropy increases cannot be recovered: an offshoot of the second law if you like that stuff.
As messy as the traditional perspective is, traditionalists still think latent heat of condensation equals the latent heat of vaporization because in equilibrium there is no net exchange of energy. What rubbish. I mean if energy associated with entropy increases are unidirectional, hence cannot be recovered then this is rubbish. Okay if you take what I have to say as our reality, then the whole traditional dealings of boiling is a case of mankind doing what we do best that being complicate the simple.
Thanks again Akinbo: I was going to put it in here as another sample but I may put it in as the next blog, what I call the “ideal gas paradox”.
Cheers Kent
In my last commentary I discussed boiling in space and when walking the dog I realized that perhaps I was not overly clear. So I write this for clarity.
When I say that boiling in a closed rigid (isometric) system requires work if the pressure is increased. Let me elaborate.
If I boil an ocean and the pressure of our atmosphere goes up then the work required is
W=d(PV) which approximately equals W=VdP +PdV
This covers the fact that both the pressure and volume of our atmosphere has increased.
Now if I boil a pot on the stove, the atmosphere’s pressure remains relatively constant but its volume increases. Hence work required to upwardly displace our atmosphere is
W=PdV
Now consider boiling in space: There is no gravity thus the gases in the space lab are not upwardly displaced and hence little work is required. So boiling takes less energy in space than here on Earth.
Now let us say that we boil a huge pot in the space lab and the pressure in that lab goes up. Hence the work done is W=VdP, with V being the lab’s volume and dP its pressure change. But this work is done by countless water molecules changing state. On an individual molecular basis the pressure increase was immeasurably small, so the work done by each molecule is rather small.
Since the work done by each molecule is small then the probability of a liquid boiling really has little to do with work and all to do with the liquid molecule being able to extract enough energy from its neighbors in order to break the water’s (liquid) intermolecular bonds. Hence boiling will take a lot less energy in space than here on Earth even if we are boiling a large pot.
Now if the isometric volume of the lab was so small that when each liquid molecule
Changed state and became a gas, then the pressure within that small volume increased measureably, then there would be significant work required for this particular boiling process into our small isometric volume.
Since I now mention the probability I will state that the probability function that is traditionally used is wrong. Again this is only my solitary belief but if anyone cares to argue this I would love the opportunity to discuss why. My paper concerning this was published in Physics Essays in 2013 and can be found on my website or through Physics essays
1) go to my website: my paper and see paper “Latent heat and Critical Temperature”
http://www.newthermodynamics.com/mypapers
2) http://physicsessays.org/browse-journal-2/product/43-19-kent-w-mayhew-latent-heat-and-critical-temperature-a-unique-perspective.html
3) https://www.academia.edu/7307615/Latent_Heat_and_Critical_Temperature
Please note I would love to discuss possible paths with anyone or as a group. I have also thought of other possible paths since I published the above paper but the above paper will get you started on how I think we should think and why you cannot simple write a probability without first discussing the path.
Sorry for not being clearer on my previous response.
Cheers and all the best Kent
In my last commentary I discussed boiling in space and when walking the dog I realized that perhaps I was not overly clear. So I write this for clarity.
When I say that boiling in a closed rigid (isometric) system requires work if the pressure is increased. Let me elaborate.
If I boil an ocean and the pressure of our atmosphere goes up then the work required is
W=d(PV) which approximately equals W=VdP +PdV
This covers the fact that both the pressure and volume of our atmosphere has increased.
Now if I boil a pot on the stove, the atmosphere’s pressure remains relatively constant but its volume increases. Hence work required to upwardly displace our atmosphere is
W=PdV
Now consider boiling in space: There is no gravity thus the gases in the space lab are not upwardly displaced and hence little work is required. So boiling takes less energy in space than here on Earth.
Now let us say that we boil a huge pot in the space lab and the pressure in that lab goes up. Hence the work done is W=VdP, with V being the lab’s volume and dP its pressure change. But this work is done by countless water molecules changing state. On an individual molecular basis the pressure increase was immeasurably small, so the work done by each molecule is rather small.
Since the work done by each molecule is small then the probability of a liquid boiling really has little to do with work and all to do with the liquid molecule being able to extract enough energy from its neighbors in order to break the water’s (liquid) intermolecular bonds. Hence boiling will take a lot less energy in space than here on Earth even if we are boiling a large pot.
Now if the isometric volume of the lab was so small that when each liquid molecule
Changed state and became a gas, then the pressure within that small volume increased measureably, then there would be significant work required for this particular boiling process into our small isometric volume.
Since I now mention the probability I will state that the probability function that is traditionally used is wrong. Again this is only my solitary belief but if anyone cares to argue this I would love the opportunity to discuss why. My paper concerning this was published in Physics Essays and can be found on my website or through Physics essays
1) go to my website: my paper and see paper “Latent heat and Critical Temperature”
http://www.newthermodynamics.com/mypapers
2) http://physicsessays.org/browse-journal-2/product/43-19-kent-w-mayhew-latent-heat-and-critical-temperature-a-unique-perspective.html
3) https://www.academia.edu/7307615/Latent_Heat_and_Critical_Temperature
Please note I would love to discuss possible paths with anyone or as a group. I have also thought of other possible paths since I published the above paper but the above paper will get you started on how I think we should think and why you cannot simple write a probability without first discussing the path.
Sorry for not being clearer on my previous response.
Kent
In my last commentary I discussed boiling in space and when walking the dog I realized that perhaps I was not overly clear. So I write this for clarity.
When I say that boiling in a closed rigid (isometric) system requires work if the pressure is increased. Let me elaborate.
If I boil an ocean and the pressure of our atmosphere goes up then the work required is
W=d(PV) which approximately equals W=VdP +PdV
This covers the fact that both the pressure and volume of our atmosphere has increased.
Now if I boil a pot on the stove, the atmosphere’s pressure remains relatively constant but its volume increases. Hence work required to upwardly displace our atmosphere is
W=PdV
Now consider boiling in space: There is no gravity thus the gases in the space lab are not upwardly displaced and hence little work is required. So boiling takes less energy in space than here on Earth.
Now let us say that we boil a huge pot in the space lab and the pressure in that lab goes up. Hence the work done is W=VdP, with V being the lab’s volume and dP its pressure change. But this work is done by countless water molecules changing state. On an individual molecular basis the pressure increase was immeasurably small, so the work done by each molecule is rather small.
Since the work done by each molecule is small then the probability of a liquid boiling really has little to do with work and all to do with the liquid molecule being able to extract enough energy from its neighbors in order to break the water’s (liquid) intermolecular bonds. Hence boiling will take a lot less energy in space than here on Earth even if we are boiling a large pot.
Now if the isometric volume of the lab was so small that when each liquid molecule
Changed state and became a gas, then the pressure within that small volume increased measureably, then there would be significant work required for this particular boiling process into our small isometric volume.
Since I now mention the probability I will state that the probability function that is traditionally used is wrong. Again this is only my solitary belief but if anyone cares to argue this I would love the opportunity to discuss why. My paper concerning this was published in Physics Essays and can be found on my website or through Physics essays
1) go to my website: my paper and see paper “Latent heat and Critical Temperature”
http://www.newthermodynamics.com/mypapers
2) http://physicsessays.org/browse-journal-2/product/43-19-kent-w-mayhew-latent-heat-and-critical-temperature-a-unique-perspective.html
3) https://www.academia.edu/7307615/Latent_Heat_and_Critical_Temperature
Please note I would love to discuss possible paths with anyone or as a group. I have also thought of other possible paths since I published the above paper but the above paper will get you started on how I think we should think and why you cannot simple write a probability without first discussing the path.
Sorry for not being clearer on my previous response.
Cheers Kent
Kent,
Did you miss my comment on October 22, 2016 at 1:48 pm…
Yes Akinbo I missed it: There was something strange wherein my reply did not show up and so I tried it again and I got a bunch of them at once – guess it my lack of understanding of this website
Do not get me wrong Akinbo: There is absolutely nothing wrong with counting the number of possible energy states as is done by Boltzmann’s”
S= k[In(numberofstates)]
So that there is no confusion with work (W) I would prefer if we write the number of states as @
So I will write here S=k[In(@)]
And yes this is the basis of Boltzmann’s interpretation of entropy
And dS=dE/T leads to what you write d(kIn@)=dE/T
And if the powers to be decide that this is entropy’s real calling, then I am fine with that
The issue really arises in our understanding of entropy. Second law or should I say lack thereof. In the above entropy is strictly a function of the number of possible states (@). What I do not like is when we then try to use entropy to explain all work, especially lost work PdV, which I have said is energy lost in the displacement of our atmosphere’s weight. Let me try and explain this better
The number of possible energy states should increase as the temperature increases. This would be common sense, As far as I am concerned, a issue becomes that an increase in the number of possible states is then transformed into the term randomness, and when this increase of randomness occurs during expansion of volume, And then this randomness increase is used to explain lost work. This is really part of the traditional consideration of the second law, and the concept that such processes are not reversible. When reality is it is not reversible because work is lost from the system into its surrounding (displacing of our atm): I am now flogging something already discussed.
Let us go back to we increase energy then the number of states increases and look at
dS=dE/T thus d(kIn@)=dE/T
Ask yourself: If we increase the thermal energy, can the system be is isothermal? Well yes it can happen: Consider an isobaric volume increase so that PdV = increase in thermal energy. Then the system remains isothermal, because energy input equals work done in upwardly displacing the atmosphere (W=PdV). So if you want to write the science using dS=dE/T thus d(kIn@)=dE/T, then I can understand. But one cannot forget that work was lost due to displacement of our atmosphere, not due to entropy!!
Now the above is different than simply adding energy, such as a piece of hot metal into a cup of water, as I previously discussed. Herein there is a temperature increase, hence this process cannot be isothermal. Hence you CANNOT write dS=dE/T, which is to say here entropy is nothing more than a heat capacity
Now ask: If we increase the energy does it necessarily increase the number of possible energy states? I am not so sure. In the case of isobaric volume expansion, the volume increases but does the number of energy states increase. I mean the system has the same total energy.
So reconsider: S=kIn(@). If the number of energy states is simply a function of volume and has nothing to do with the system’s energy then the answer is yes.
BUT if you consider that the number of possible energy states is a function of energy then the answer becomes no. Herein the number of possible energy states only increases if the thermal energy density i.e. temperature increases
You see Boltzmann wanted it all, but his math can only define one or the other NOT both. And of course we scientist failed to understand this fundamental issue.
So Akinbo before we can deal with what you are considering you must choose how you define @ that being the number of possible states. Is it strictly an energy or volume function?
Akinbo you also discuss that as we get to smaller matter, then we have more particles and then ask is this an entropy increase? Yes you have more particles. Do you have more volume? Do you have more energy? Or should we add a third implication to @, that being number of particles?
The beauty of where I stand; that being at a new beginning we can do anything,. But if we want others to listen how far can we push it?
So, I appreciate what you are saying Akinbo, but my gut says that you have not completely let go of your traditional indoctrination. It is tough to do. It took me years of head banging before I let go of entropy completely. Once I did, what an eye opener
And least we forget. I am of the opinion that Boltzmanns constant (k) makes S=kIn(@) equate to empirical findings here on Earth. In other words K may be a function of Earth’s gravitational field rather than a universal constant
Of course this does not completely diminish Boltzamn’s greatness nor his mathematical capabilities but it does add context.
I hope this helps
Cheers Kent
http://www.naturalphilosophy.org/site/nickpercival/2016/10/15/cbr-dark-matter-cosmology-entropy-and-a-new-kinetic-theory/
.
.
.
“Atomic hydrogen is composed of an electron electrically bound to a proton forming neutral hydrogen. Protons, just as electrons have a fundamental property called “spin”. In a hydrogen atom, those spins are coupled either parallel or anti parallel.”
.
.
The results of two H atoms spinning CW and two H atoms spinning: one CW and the other CCW…
.
https://youtu.be/wUMi200Be8A?t=374
.
.
.
“The interesting point is that a transition from a parallel to an anti parallel coupling of spins in hydrogen (and vice versa) takes place when hydrogen is emitting (or absorbing) electromagnetic radiation at a wavelength of 21 cm. Consequently, one can determine the amount of atomic hydrogen H in the universe by measuring the amount of radiation absorbed (or emitted) at 21 cm. The actual observation of the 21 cm. line proves that there is a very abundant amount of atomic hydrogen in the universe.”
.
.
Every atom in the U is PHYSICALLY CONNECTED to all others via an EM ROPE. An atom is MADE of the same threads that form the EM rope which is the mediator of light.
.
https://youtu.be/mruRQL6mfk8?t=527
.
.
.
“CBR is nothing more than cold matter absorbing the surrounding thermal energy and then radiating it as 3 degree K blackbody”
.
.
1. If the term ‘cold matter’ in that sentence refers to what the wiki calls ‘ultra cold atoms’, the definition of this term is…
.
cold atoms: “atoms that are maintained at temperatures close to 0 kelvin”
.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultracold_atom
.
In Physics, there is an object called atom. There is no object called ‘cold atom’ any more than there is a thing called a ‘dead’ cat’. In Physics, there are only cats… no black cats, dead cats, fast cats, jumping cats or smart cats. In Physics, a term used as an object must be presented without any qualifiers or modifiers or adjectives or adverbs in front or after.
In Science, we do not define objects. In Science, we define concepts and ILLUSTRATE objects. The proponent of an OBJECT used as a mediator in Physics is REQUIRED to draw, sculpt a statue of, make a mockup of, bring the real thing in, etc., of the object(s) that will participate in his theory. The Golden Principle of Physics states…
.
…………………………….The Golden Principle of Physics
.
“Physics requires an object. Physics cannot be done without an object.”
.
.
What would there be to study in Physics if there were no objects? What phenomenon would occur without the presence of objects? What would there be to watch or see? How can a transaction take place without objects being present? It is irrational to do Physics with concepts. It is irrational to claim that a concept moved in a theory of Physics. A theory of Physics is a MOTION PICTURE. The proponent is REQUIRED to make a movie of a physical theory and all the objects will necessarily be identified on the screen and in every frame of the film.
.
Therefore, no DEFINITION of ‘cold matter’ can be accepted. A simple PICTURE of this enigmatic ‘thingy’ people call ‘cold matter’ or ‘dark matter’ or whatever will do.
.
.
2. ‘absorbing thermal energy’
.
It is irrational to use the word ‘energy’ in any way, shape, or form. There is no physical object called ‘energy’. He who uses the word ‘energy’ in Physics is in essence saying and introducing ‘spirits’. Just in case, the words force, wave, plasma, time, charge, mass, and field are also outlawed. People should stop introducing the idiotic, undefined language of Mathemagix into Physics.
.
http://youstupidrelativist.com/02Sci/07Words/00SumWords.html
.
.
3. the CBR is…
.
https://youtu.be/dHnS2Qi6hvY?t=487
.
.
.
This comment is being posted as a thread @ …
.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/RationalScientificMethod
.
for discussion.
.
.
.
“Atomic hydrogen is composed of an electron electrically bound to a proton forming neutral hydrogen. Protons, just as electrons have a fundamental property called “spin”. In a hydrogen atom, those spins are coupled either parallel or anti parallel.”
.
.
The results of two H atoms spinning CW and two H atoms spinning: one CW and the other CCW…
.
https://youtu.be/wUMi200Be8A?t=374
.
.
.
“The interesting point is that a transition from a parallel to an anti parallel coupling of spins in hydrogen (and vice versa) takes place when hydrogen is emitting (or absorbing) electromagnetic radiation at a wavelength of 21 cm. Consequently, one can determine the amount of atomic hydrogen H in the universe by measuring the amount of radiation absorbed (or emitted) at 21 cm. The actual observation of the 21 cm. line proves that there is a very abundant amount of atomic hydrogen in the universe.”
.
.
Every atom in the U is PHYSICALLY CONNECTED to all others via an EM ROPE. An atom is MADE of the same threads that form the EM rope which is the mediator of light.
.
https://youtu.be/mruRQL6mfk8?t=527
.
.
.
“CBR is nothing more than cold matter absorbing the surrounding thermal energy and then radiating it as 3 degree K blackbody”
.
.
1. If the term ‘cold matter’ in that sentence refers to what the wiki calls ‘ultra cold atoms’, the definition of this term is…
.
cold atoms: “atoms that are maintained at temperatures close to 0 kelvin”
.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultracold_atom
.
In Physics, there is an object called atom. There is no object called ‘cold atom’ any more than there is a thing called a ‘dead’ cat’. In Physics, there are only cats… no black cats, dead cats, fast cats, jumping cats or smart cats. In Physics, a term used as an object must be presented without any qualifiers or modifiers or adjectives or adverbs in front or after.
In Science, we do not define objects. In Science, we define concepts and ILLUSTRATE objects. The proponent of an OBJECT used as a mediator in Physics is REQUIRED to draw, sculpt a statue of, make a mockup of, bring the real thing in, etc., of the object(s) that will participate in his theory. The Golden Principle of Physics states…
.
…………………………….The Golden Principle of Physics
.
“Physics requires an object. Physics cannot be done without an object.”
.
.
What would there be to study in Physics if there were no objects? What phenomenon would occur without the presence of objects? What would there be to watch or see? How can a transaction take place without objects being present? It is irrational to do Physics with concepts. It is irrational to claim that a concept moved in a theory of Physics. A theory of Physics is a MOTION PICTURE. The proponent is REQUIRED to make a movie of a physical theory and all the objects will necessarily be identified on the screen and in every frame of the film.
.
Therefore, no DEFINITION of ‘cold matter’ can be accepted. A simple PICTURE of this enigmatic ‘thingy’ people call ‘cold matter’ or ‘dark matter’ or whatever will do.
.
.
2. ‘absorbing thermal energy’
.
It is irrational to use the word ‘energy’ in any way, shape, or form. There is no physical object called ‘energy’. He who uses the word ‘energy’ in Physics is in essence saying and introducing ‘spirits’. Just in case, the words force, wave, plasma, time, charge, mass, and field are also outlawed. People should stop introducing the idiotic, undefined language of Mathemagix into Physics.
.
http://youstupidrelativist.com/02Sci/07Words/00SumWords.html
.
.
3. the CBR is…
.
https://youtu.be/dHnS2Qi6hvY?t=487
.
.
.
This comment is being posted as a thread @ …
.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/RationalScientificMethod
.
for discussion.
.
.
.
Well Bill you sure have a different way of thinking.
Concerning atomic hydrogen: I have not taken too much time pondering hydrogen’s signature wavelengths but I was aware that 21 cm wavelength is associated with the electron’s spin.
I also think that Paul Marmet was thinking in terms of spin possibly explaining CBR. As I stated I was not convinced that a blackbody type of radiation (like CBR is claimed to be) could be associated with spin, Rather I was thinking that the simplest explanation is intermolecular & intramolecular vibrations, similar to that associated with condensed matter. Hence I jumped all over Paul Marmet’s conceptualization of molecular hydrogen (H2) permeating our universe (or at least residing somewhere in significant quantitites) whose signature would be radically different than spin. Okay I am repeating myself, sorry.
I see from utube that you love a theory based upon interconnection of all matter – rope as you like to call it. It certainly makes for some interesting conjecture. I personally have not given it much thought. Of course EM fields from all matter will interconnect, I am not sure if I am comfortable with calling it rope but thanks for opening my mind to other possibilities
Cold matter is an interesting discussion. First of all I will say if there exists dark matter, I must assume that it is cold (temperature wise) and assuming that dark matter exist what is its EM signature. If not CBR then what? And this is why I like CBR as its Em signature. Of course this does not tell us what dark matter is beyond it is something bigger than atomic hydrogen (H), and the first thing that it could be (next size up wise) is molecular hydrogen (H2).
Next you go on to discussing wiki: Ultra cold matter. Certainly strange things will happen at absolute zero. I also feel that as temperature get to such cold temperatures that the actual thermal energy density will no longer be proportional to temperature. Of course this requires a slightly different interpretation of temperature beyond the current one which says that a volume without matter cannot have a temperature. Perhaps this would make for an interesting discussion, although we would be getting off topic of this particular blog.
You state that physics cannot be done without an object. To this I would disagree. We have the physics of a vacuum. Yes a vacuum is much more boring than a cat, so you might say that you cannot have non-boring physics without an object. I mean to me saying no object no physics is as off the mark as saying a vacuum cannot have a temperature.
As for your ending concerning/using facebook. I am sorry I do not facebook. I mean hanging your life on the internet for the world to see has never really interested me in the least. I mean my life is MY life.
Thanks bill for the different perspective. Not sure how what I have to say concerning thermodynamics exactly fits into your theories, but I will ponder it.
Cheers Kent
“You state that physics cannot be done without an object. To this I would disagree. We have the physics of a vacuum.”
.
.
What Physics is there in a vacuum without any objects? If God removes all matter from the U (and makes Himself disappear as well), what actions does vacuum perform all by itself? What phenomenon is occurring?
.
.
.
“saying no object no physics is as off the mark as saying a vacuum cannot have a temperature”
.
Of course, vacuum cannot have a temperature. Temperature consist of vibrations. What vibrates in a vacuum in the absence of objects?
Dear Bill
I am sorry but I do not as a rule intermix religion and science. Hence do not enjoy who removes the matter
But a vacuum can have energy. It is most often black body in nature and yes it is energy so it concerns physics. I will stay away from magical black energy here, because I am not an admirer of the virtues of black energy.
In general outer space as I see it has CBR (CMBR). Yes this a vacuum with CBR has no matter. Does it have a temperature? I would argue that it does, it has a temperature of 3 degrees K to be exact (or if you prefer 2.7 or 2.9 are slightly more precise numbers that I have read)
I agree that traditional thermodynamics does not consider a vacuum to have a temperature because in the way thermodynamics is now taught temperature is only associated with matter. In other words outer space does not have a temperature until you put a thermometer into it. so my answewr to your statement: “temperature consists of vibrations” Is that temperature in matter consists of vibrations temperature in free space consists of blackbody radiation.
To me such traditional consideration is perverse logic. Outer space had a temperature of 3 degrees K before you put the thermometer into it, after you took the thermometer out of it , as well as when the thermometer was in it.
Just because the energy density associated with a black body filled vacuum is generally infinitesimally small when compared to the thermal energy contained in a matter filled equal volume (at the same temperature), does not mean that the energy associated with the blackbody radiation does not exist. To say so would be to say that blackbody radiation does not exist, and this in itself has led to certain lunacies in thermodynamics as a science.
I repeat physics concerns all forms of energy!!
I agree that writing an 1000 word essay concerning the physics of a vacuum maybe tough for some but just consider a vacuum here on Earth. It requires work to displace the mass of the Earth’s atmosphere. Heck we can consider it as negative work performed onto that volume, and you know what you have a very challenging, instructive, non-repeating beautiful several page long essay explaining why negative work is so bloody unstable. Something that is amiss in thermodynamics and I discuss in my unpublished book. Heck you could expand it into a chapter in book (as I have done: not published) such as where I discuss cavitation as a form of negative work thru vortexes in fluids. Heck you could then go on to discuss what makes a bubble stable and why bubbles smaller than microbubbles are inherently unstable, and you have the makings of a book (like my unpublished book that probably noone will ever read).
and I got all that from a bloody empty vacuum. You try it.
If you want the beggining of how I think concerning cavitation (I have changed things since then but the principles are the same) please see my 2004 paper in Physics Essays. You can find in titled Energetics of Nucleation on Physics Essays website or on my website http://www.newthermodynamics.com under the headings my papers. You may also be befuddled as I was the first person ever to properly explain how much energy is required to form a bubble: of course the powers to be really do not give a sh*t.
cheers and thanks for actually reading what I have to say
Kent
“I do not as a rule intermix religion and science”
.
Ha, ha, ha. And then you introduce spirits into your dissertation…”a vacuum can have energy”…
.
So you have a contradiction. We said VACUUM. We said that there are NO OBJECTS. Suddenly, out of nowhere, you introduced ‘something’ you call ‘energy’. This contradicts the initial assumption.
.
Now, you can ‘HAVE’ a headache and you can ‘HAVE” a coin in your pocket. The former is a CONCEPT. The latter is an OBJECT. We use the verb ‘HAVE’ for both. The former belongs in ORDINARY SPEECH. The latter is well within the bounds of Physics and Science. We don’t HAVE headaches in Physics! We can HAVE coins.
.
So which does vacuum HAVE when it HAS ‘energy’: an object or a concept? What is this ‘thingy’ you call ‘energy’? What does it have to do with Physics?
.
.
.
Bill
I am sorry but I really do not think that it is plausible to have a vacuum with nothing in it. If CBR exists in our galaxy then perhaps interstellar space between galaxies has absolutely nothing in it, other than the passing of light from other galaxies, hey that is still something. and if I try to create a vacuum here on Earth at absolute zero , do I really get absolute zero, if not I still have energy in it.
Anyhow I tend not to think of energy as an object and whether that is right or wrong is cutting hairs. So by object I really mean something with mass, and moreover since a vacuum could have a chunk of metal, rock etc in it and remain a vacuum, then I suppose I am talking about gas molecules.
If you want to say you cannot have real physics without either energy, or matter and by that you mean object then we are cutting semantic hairs . And if cutting such hairs helps you sleep at night, then great for you. I am not being rude I am just stating what I think
To me an object has matter while energy can be associated with that object whether it be inertia, or internal energy. If I am wrong I apologize but I really do not want to waste anyone’s time on trivial definitions and am more interested in conceptualization and yes I agree that concepts need definitions, But………
thanks again Kent
“I tend not to think of energy as an object”
.
All you said is what energy is not. Energy is not a horse and not a dog and not a cow. That doesn’t tell the crowd what energy is in the alternative.
.
And again, if as you say, ‘vacuum HAS energy’, what could this possibly mean if energy is not an object?
.
Does vacuum also HAVE headaches and information and love and beauty? Is this the list in which we should place ‘energy’?
.
.
.
“by object I really mean something with mass”
.
So according to you, we need to carry out an experiment to determine if a house is an object, correct? We need to weigh the house or accelerate it before we can call it an object. Is this what you’re proposing?
.
.
“cutting semantic hairs”
.
The person who does not define HIS terms is doing ‘semantics’. In Science, we must have rigorous definitions in order to understand the theory being exposed. The crisper the definitions, the clearer the message! Without definitions of the key terms that the presenter uses, no one – not even himself – can understand what he said.
.
.
.
Dear Bill
By definition
“An Object is a material thing that can be seen and touched.”
that definition was the very first one to come up when I googled the word object. Those are not my words
Can energy be seen : okay certain frequencies can be seen but in general no
Can energy be touched ykes it can be felt but I might argue it cannot in the real sense be touched
Moreover I really think that an object consists of matter, specifically matter that possesses a real and significant easily measured mass. Thus I use the word in that context when I write. I apologize for any misunderstanding that my use of the word object causes
Again arguing semantics is touchy. If the use of the word object in the english language bothers you so be it
I understand and feel for you if that is the case : I can do no more than that
Have a great day Bill, from Kent
“An Object is a material thing that can be seen and touched.”
.
.
1. A synonym is a circular definition: no definition at all. The word ‘thing’ is a synonym of object. ‘Thing’ is the word I asked you to define.
.
2. So according to you, we need an object to define the word ‘object’… another circular definition. We need a human or a tree or the Moon (i.e., an object) to touch the asteroid before the asteroid can be regarded as an object? And we need a lion (an object) to see the rock before the rock can be regarded as an object? And we certainly can’t see or touch that star at the other side of the U. Is that star an object? And if a rock is the only object in the U, who’s going to do the touching and seeing? Isn’t it an object?
.
3. “that definition was the very first one to come up when I googled the word object. Those are not my words… Can energy be seen… in general no… Can energy be touched… it cannot in the real sense be touched”
.
Then why did you copy a definition if you don’t agree with it and it debunks your argument? What’s the relevance? Is this how you do ‘physics’: just parroting without analyzing? You just transcribe definitions from the dictionary and don’t check to see if what you transcribed makes any sense?
.
Of course, I was expecting YOUR personal definition in order to understand YOUR usage of ‘energy’ in the context of ‘vacuum’. YOU said that vacuum HAS ‘energy’. We have yet no idea what you’re talking about or what you meant.
.
4. We’re interested in the SCIENTIFIC definition of the word ‘object’. So don’t bother looking it up in dictionaries of ORDINARY SPEECH. What is an object for the purposes of Physics? That’s the question in the instant matter.
.
.
“an object consists of matter”
.
I didn’t ask what an object is ‘made of’ or ‘consists of’. I asked what is YOUR DEFINITION of the word ‘object’. We can’t understand what you meant by “vacuum HAS ‘energy” (if by that you meant that energy is a physical object) until we have a definition of ‘object’.
.
object: ________________ ? (Synonyms: thing, entity, body, substance, something, anything, structure, architecture, finite, etc. So don’t use any of these words in your definition.)
.
Any clue?
.
I mean, I don’t want to embarrass you, but this is a word we learn on our first day of class in Physics…
.
.
“I understand and feel for you”
.
Don’t feel for me. Just answer the question. Thx.
.
.
.
All,
After reading this thread I feel compelled to make a few comments. I wish I had time to really flesh this out in a few blog posts of my own; however, I do not so I will keep this somewhat philosophical and leave out the obligatory mathematics. Dialog is good as most of us are here because we seek truth, not the hyperbole we so often hear from the main steam science pundits; iron sharpens iron.
I know we had the entropy discussion before and I do not realty want to rehash this but… Consider an isobaric, isochoric, isothermal isolated system, no energy or mass can cross the boundary, except to initially perturb the system in such a way to cause the otherwise totally random thermal kinetic particle motion to have organized standing wave geometry with an average particle velocity v. This has to deliberately set up because there is no way this could occur without a deliberate perturbation. As random collisions between particles occur thus distorting the wave shape, over some period of time the wave structure will collapse and kinetic motion will again become totally random but the average velocity will remain a constant v. In this case the kinetic energy has lost its ability to maintain the organized motion necessary to sustain standing wave geometry. Thus entropy has increased but total energy content of the system has not changed; this is the conventional sense of the concept of entropy and I have no problem with it, in fact I believe that the implied conceptual frame work can and should be extended to non-energy phenomenon where a loss of ‘order’ or ‘structure’ must occur without a sustaining mechanism in place. Information (NOT data) is an excellent area for consideration here. Nuff said.
Thermodynamically speaking, if we now consider the universe to be finite, then we can apply the illustration of the isolated system to the universe as a whole; this implies that at some point in the future the universe will acquiesce to a state similar to our isolated system above where there are no stars or other celestial objects and any kinetic motion is isotropically random if there is no external force to act on it. The corollary to this is that the universe – even if it is finite in material extent, must have had a prime-mover to initiate any observed organization. While we can see how certain types of organization can arise via the movement of matter via some type of force while there are centers of concentration such as the node in a wave structure, once we reach the point of total kinetic equilibrium, there can no longer be organization of matter into any type of structure.
While this untenable to many who must bow to the materialist only world view, I can see no logical alternative based on what we know objectively about physics; I know that many, particularly in mainstream science, have come up with solutions to this dilemma via special pleading, but there is no empirical proof for any of their theories and no experiment that can be done to prove that this is not true. This concept, that there can be a heat death to the universe or not, is not something that can be proven experimentally, one’s position is simply a matter of belief or desire – it is not science in the materialist sense. Notwithstanding however is that empirical observation has shown that the laws of thermodynamics as we know them have never been violated, therefore it seems logical to conclude that those who believe in an ultimate heat death are more likely correct.
Now, what does a heat death look like? I would propose, that if the universe is materially finite (and we do not know if that is true) but spatially unbounded, then not only would energy not be able to create structure, but it could expand (again we do not know if this is what happens – we can only speculate) in such a way as to dissipate all movement that is considered thermal. Yet the presence if CMBR suggests that this is not what happens exactly. However, we must remember, that from out viewpoint, the CMBR is NOT isotropic! We also know that just because thermal motion appears to stop, the material is still there as illustrated by the Bose-Einstein condensate, so there is still some type of activity even if kinetic energy appears to be zero. We could say that we have simple neutral H atoms, but the 21 cm spin flip suggests that there are other forces involved.
Now put aside thermodynamics for a moment and consider that when EM waves propagate through any medium, that medium determines their velocity (note, the nature of particles and fields is not important here). We generally observe that the velocity if EM waves in a medium, other than free space, will be wavelength dependent (it actually gets much more complicated). Yet in the vacuum or free space, this does not happen – all wavelengths travel at ‘c’. Yet the vacuum has impedance, ~377 ohms. How is it possible that a vacuum which is supposed to be void can have the attributes of a material substance? Except that the all wavelengths travel at ‘c’, the propagation behavior of an EM field in a vacuum is identical to that of any material. (The question I have asked myself is do we know if this is absolutely true? We do not, we just think we do.)
Consider now plasma which is considered to be collectively neutral in charge unless it is perturbed by introducing a charge displacement. Also consider that because of Debye shielding, plasma that has been perturbed by a charge will localize, isolate, and eventually neutralize that charge to the extent that is not measurable or perceptible in the aggregate. If we compute the refractive index of plasma over a range of frequencies, we find that the not only can n < 1, but it can also be complex. We also know that if we pulse a laser through plasma, it can form a channel (I’m assuming from the Debye shielding effects) and propagate independent of wavelength. This suggests to me that we can possibly treat the vacuum as plasma (even if we do not know precisely what it is) and the CMBR is just the interaction of larger particles such as H+, H, H2, etc., interacting with what would otherwise be neutral and non-interactive. It may be this interaction that causes the CMBR to not be homogeneous and isotropic. We know that these larger particles must be there because they are emitted from the sun at nearly the speed of light. The question of what comprises a vacuum is then identifying the substance between the particles. For now we can just call it aether or some other pet name, but something there has physical properties or there could be no permittivity and permeability and thus no intrinsic impedance – and this is electromagnetic in nature not kinetic.
Finally, consider that EM is ~40 orders of magnitude stronger than Newtonian gravitational attraction. If we believe that gravity is the controlling force in the universe then we are ignoring the elephant in the room. We need dark matter to make gravity work, but we do not need it to make EM work, that works just fine and is almost completely explainable using the classical EM approach. I know that many have reported that the universe is essentially neutral electrically, even to 17 orders of magnitude. But that is not 40 and when we consider the physical asymmetry of the predominate charges (p+ and e-), rejecting the contrivance of point charges, we can begin to see that EM may in fact be the controlling force from which gravity emanates. Dark matter is not necessary when we consider all things. We can and have reproduced phenomenon that resemble celestial structure in the laboratory using plasma and EM fields. We empirically know that this works.
In conclusion, while not all of physics is in desperate need of revision, some is. It is open dialog like this that is missing in the mainstream arena and I suspect that there is not much we can do collectively since their tool of defense are not the tools of science. But that should not stop us from continually seeking the truth, regardless of where it leads.
-Joe
Dear Joe
Firstly: Thanks for the great insightful reply
Joe state: “Consider an isobaric, isochoric, isothermal isolated system, no energy or mass can cross the boundary, except to initially perturb the system in such a way to cause the otherwise totally random thermal kinetic particle motion to have organized standing wave geometry with an average particle velocity v.”
I might ask is this system that you speak in a gravitational field? If you say yes then you may care to ponder if it is truly isolated and then perhaps even ask: How realistic is a truly isolated system
From this if the system was not isochoric hence expands her on Earth then it displaces its surroundings atmosphere hence does work hence cannot be deemed truly isolated. I know I am repeating myself but there is a point to this. My true feeling is that this analogy of an expanding becoming more random hence the association volume with entropy, which is a fundamental shortcoming of the science.
Okay so you question is isochoric hence it does not expand. The issues I get are
1) How can the system be perturbed? If it is truly isolated then no external interactions can possibly be applied. Even if you shake the system then you are applying something to it.
2) Let us consider that the kinetic particle changes its motion due to a collision with a similar particle. What happens:
a) Elastic collision: One particle enters a higher energy state, while the other enters a lower energy state such that both energy and momentum are conserved
b) Inelastic collision: One particle enters a higher energy state, while the other enters a lower energy state such that only momentum is conserved and some heat/energy is released because the collision is inelastic.
In both a) and b) do you need entropy based arguments. The energy of the system has not changed. Okay it maybe a bit more obvious for elastic collision a) that it is simply a case of momentum and energy transfer.
Case b) is not so obvious but the energy released by the inelastic collision is absorbed by the system walls and is then passed back onto the kinetic particles in some future wall kinetic particle collision.
I can extend Case b) and say most collisions are not perfect elastic collision so hence we have a mechanism for the relationship between pressure and temperature: Okay that should be a different blog if it interests anyone.
My point remains Joe that entropy is not necessary to do thermodynamics. Again you choose to do so because it is indoctrinated into your so as it was mine. It took me years of head banging while I was rewriting thermodynamics before I got to the point of throw entropy out.
Does this mean that you may need to alter your understanding of entropy? If it helps you sleep then yes. Me I would either throw it out or give it ONE definition and use it based upon that ONE definition rather than leave it as the cure for all thermodynamic wounds.
And yes if you want to keep it then great. Based upon that one definition rework your thinking. Do not look at what I say with indignation, look at it as an opportunity.
Joe states: Thermodynamically speaking, if we now consider the universe to be finite, then we can apply the illustration of the isolated system to the universe as a whole;
I agree
Joe continues: “this implies that at some point in the future the universe will acquiesce to a state similar to our isolated system above where there are no stars or other celestial objects and any kinetic motion is isotropically random if there is no external force to act on it.”
I do not know, Gravity is the possible changer of that. It cause matter to accumulate and heat up, leading to star formation etc. I do know if the universe is a continuous recycling or a one time event. I am sorry that I do not have an answer. Moreover I have no idea who to ask
Joe states: “While this untenable to many who must bow to the materialist only world view, I can see no logical alternative based on what we know objectively about physics; I know that many, particularly in mainstream science, have come up with solutions to this dilemma via special pleading, but there is no empirical proof for any of their theories and no experiment that can be done to prove that this is not true. This concept, that there can be a heat death to the universe or not, is not something that can be proven experimentally, one’s position is simply a matter of belief or desire – it is not science in the materialist sense. “
I agree
Joes continues: “Notwithstanding however is that empirical observation has shown that the laws of thermodynamics as we know them have never been violated, “
I disagree. The second law is a bogus law that does not apply. It thinks in terms of an isothermal entropy increase related to an energy change in an isolated system. There are no such a true isolated system. Moreover entropy increases are most often thought of as a volume increase, and no system surrounded by mass in a gravitational field can experience a volume increase without doing work onto its surroundings hence such a system cannot be isolated.
So Joe I agree that the first law holds i.e. that energy is conserved, while the second law has no realistic application but is wrongly applied to every process.
Joe states: “Now, what does a heat death look like? I would propose, that if the universe is materially finite (and we do not know if that is true) but spatially unbounded, then not only would energy not be able to create structure, but it could expand (again we do not know if this is what happens – we can only speculate) in such a way as to dissipate all movement that is considered thermal. Yet the presence if CMBR suggests that this is not what happens exactly. However, we must remember, that from out viewpoint, the CMBR is NOT isotropic!”
I know little about heat death. It is human speculation. Like I said CMBR maybe nothing more than the heat signature of cold matter that is somewhere in our universe or perhaps just in our galaxay.
Joe states: “We also know that just because thermal motion appears to stop, the material is still there as illustrated by the Bose-Einstein condensate, so there is still some type of activity even if kinetic energy appears to be zero. We could say that we have simple neutral H atoms, but the 21 cm spin flip suggests that there are other forces involved.”
Joe to me absolute zero means no thermal energy hence intermolecular and intramolecular vibrations stop. Does this mean electrons stop. I have my doubts.
Moreover as we get colder like 100 degrees Kelvin and below the thermal energy density within matter should no longer be proportional to temperature. This can be understood if you accept that thermal energy is primarily due to infra red frequencies and then apply Weins law to the spectrum. Perhaps another possible blog if it interests anyone.
Sorry to cut off here but I have to go
Cheers and thanks for reading
Sincerely Kent
As a continuation of my responses to Joe’s Concern: Sorry Joe for having to go but I had something to do.
Joe states:
“Consider now plasma which is considered to be collectively neutral in charge unless it is perturbed by introducing a charge displacement. Also consider that because of Debye shielding, plasma that has been perturbed by a charge will localize, isolate, and eventually neutralize that charge to the extent that is not measurable or perceptible in the aggregate. If we compute the refractive index of plasma over a range of frequencies, we find that the not only can n < 1, but it can also be complex. We also know that if we pulse a laser through plasma, it can form a channel (I’m assuming from the Debye shielding effects) and propagate independent of wavelength. This suggests to me that we can possibly treat the vacuum as plasma (even if we do not know precisely what it is) and the CMBR is just the interaction of larger particles such as H+, H, H2, etc., interacting with what would otherwise be neutral and non-interactive. It may be this interaction that causes the CMBR to not be homogeneous and isotropic.”
It is interesting analysis. I jhave never thought in those terms hence cannot say anything but maybe. Me personally being a simpleton was thinking in terms of thermal energy exciting intramolecular and intermolecular vibration, In this way of thinking matter absorbs and radiates surrounding radiation. At room temperatures this means that matter collection thermal radiation (blackbody radiation traveling speed of light). In this process matter concentrates thermal radiation, i.e. increases the thermal energy density. This explains why thermal energy associated with matter is generally significantly greater than that associated with the surrounding blackbody radiation
So what about dark matter (assuming it exist), Then it to must absorb and collect hence concentrate thermal radiation and also radiate as blackbody radiation. And to me this is a simpler explanation for CBR than the possible one you seem to be discussing.
Me I am not 100% sure, I just put it out there as the simplest possible explanation of CBR. You could be right, I do not know. I will say that given a choice I follow Oakm’s razor and have a preference for the simplest explanation possible, until proven otherwise
Joe also states: “Finally, consider that EM is ~40 orders of magnitude stronger than Newtonian gravitational attraction. If we believe that gravity is the controlling force in the universe then we are ignoring the elephant in the room. We need dark matter to make gravity work, but we do not need it to make EM work, that works just fine and is almost completely explainable using the classical EM approach. I know that many have reported that the universe is essentially neutral electrically, even to 17 orders of magnitude. But that is not 40 and when we consider the physical asymmetry of the predominate charges (p+ and e-), rejecting the contrivance of point charges, we can begin to see that EM may in fact be the controlling force from which gravity emanates. Dark matter is not necessary when we consider all things. We can and have reproduced phenomenon that resemble celestial structure in the laboratory using plasma and EM fields. We empirically know that this works.”
You are absolutely right about EM being significantly more powerful as a force than gravity. It is just that gravity is the seemingly forever constant attractive force. EM can be either attractive or repulsive. So I agree that EM will often dominate what we witness but I would hesitate to claim it is something that is some continuous anti-dispersion force for all matter in our universe
Do not get me wrong I fully appreciate what all you, Joe are saying.
Thanks again Kent
Hi Kent,
You are trying to explain away the conditions of the experiment. You must accept all the boundary conditions as they are given, no tinkering allowed :-). How the system is perturbed is not important, that it is perturbed is all that matters for the illustration. And the type of collisions are not relevant either as the wave will self-destruct regardless and no pressure is released. While this may not be a 100% realizable situation, it illustrates that energy can be lost for a process, yet still be present in the system. That is all. That energy, lost for the process is entropy – even if is lost as an increase in pressure to the atmosphere since without some functional process which is designed to harvest and direct that lost energy, that lost energy can never be recovered for use in the original process.
You stated “…while the second law has no realistic application but is wrongly applied to every process.” This is an opinion I do not share. To understand my perspective, consider that I am NOT a physicist, but an engineer who loves the study of physics. In this regard, theory is secondary to application, that is of course unless the theory can be effectively applied to the application and explain how (not why) that application works. To see how the lost energy measure of entropy (and its evil cousin exergy) have been successfully applied you can look at book such as Greg F. Naterer and Jose A. Camberos’s “Entropy Based Design and Analysis of Fluids Engineering Systems” or Allan D. Kraus’s “Introduction to Thermal and Fluid Engineering”, the second of which I have not read. Regardless of whether the science here is correct or not, the application of the ideas are both accepted and practiced with success in an empirical fashion, not a theoretical one. In addition to engineering in fluidic systems, the concepts are also used to evaluate biological system and even software systems for the successful identification of malware (I’m sure there are more but these are the applications with which I am familiar). We will just have to agree to disagree about the meaning and suitability of the word entropy.
As for gravity causing the formation of stars, I say that is a bunch of hooey. Its clever mathematics without a foundation; its needed to prop up the notion that the universe created itself, which is anathema to thermodynamics. I think we both know that that as volume decreases, both pressure and temperature must increase to the point where the kinetic energy will exceed the feeble gravimetric force experienced by any gas. Add more matter as an accretion and the problem gets worse. In this regard I am confident that those in the mainstream are full of themselves. Here is a link to a fairly comprehensive article that cites many scientific reasons why this is so. Please note that I may find the article useful, in no way do I support or endorse any other content on the website – I do not even know what it says.
https://www.libertariannews.org/2010/04/26/einstein-was-wrong-falsifying-observational-evidence/
For EM versus gravity, for now just contemplate diamagnetic and paramagnetic materials, that they exist and how they interact. Then wrestle with the fact that all known matter that is considered electrically and magnetically inert still has an asymmetric geometry with respect to charge carriers and every electron must by definition have an associated magnetic field. If you want to actually explore this, I would recommend material by Charles Lucas and S. E. Wright, both of which have robust theories.
As for my comments about treating the ‘aether’ as plasma, that is speculation. But that the ‘aether’ must exist, that is supported by classical EM theory and QM, we just call it by new names such as quantum fluctuations or whatever.
Take care,
-Joe
Joe states: “You are trying to explain away the conditions of the experiment. You must accept all the boundary conditions as they are given, no tinkering allowed :-). How the system is perturbed is not important, that it is perturbed is all that matters for the illustration. And the type of collisions are not relevant either as the wave will self-destruct regardless and no pressure is released. While this may not be a 100% realizable situation, it illustrates that energy can be lost for a process, yet still be present in the system. That is all. That energy, lost for the process is entropy – even if is lost as an increase in pressure to the atmosphere since without some functional process which is designed to harvest and direct that lost energy, that lost energy can never be recovered for use in the original process.”
I would disagree Joe. Let me explain. You are taking the view that of which we were taught. In that traditional view there can be states that are not equilibrium states and as such we were taught that seemingly in these confused states the conservation of energy can seemingly be forgotten but energy will be conserved once equilibrium returns.
I no longer believe in such things. Me I believe that energy is conserved at all times, it just that our logic is confused. Basically this is what you are doing. When you state “energy is lost for a process yet present in the system” you are bang on. However I would argue that the lost energy is a misguided concept. In other words just because we have lost track of where that energy is, does not mean the energy is lost. Moreover the fact that we lost track of the energy has nothing to do with entropy, it is all misinterpretation by us.
This is why I gave you the two possibilities of kinetic particle collision. i.e. gas molecules in a box. We assume all such collision are elastic in thermodynamics. The reality is that they are in all likelihood not elastic collisions. In other words we have the transfer of mechanical energy between the molecules so that momentum is conserved along with photon or photons i.e heat. And these photons become part of the surrounding blackbody radiation hence are lost amongst hoardes of other various freq photons (blackbody radiation). Eventually these extra photons are passed onto the walls resulting in an infinitesimally small increase in the wall molecule’s energy, which is then passed
back onto the gas molecules within that box.
The above is a rather realistic scenario wherein energy is exchanged within a closed isometric fully insulated system. Now when you use entropy based arguments to explain the above, you walk a fine line of complicating the simple. Again I could ask what is your exact definition of entropy herein, but why bother.
You also state “And the type of collisions are not relevant either as the wave will self-destruct regardless and no pressure is released.” I did not mean pressure is released if that is what I typed I mean a photon, energy is released
Joe you have to understand something. This is probably better suited for another blog but let me try it this way. The reason that we have things like kinetic theory, the ideal gas law, Avogadro’s hypothesis etc etc is that we do experiments and these are result based theories. What traditional thermodynamics fails to understand is that the reason that these theories/laws exists is that we perform experiments using systems and our experimental systems tend to have walls, i.e. closed systems are the most common experimental system. I have come to realize that walls influence what we witness. Specifically without walls then kinetic theory, ideal gas law, avogadro’s hypothesis etc etc all collapse.
In other words everything we know about how matter interacts with thermal energy is based upon a unique world surrounded by walls which may or may not be a exact representation of what we are trying to learn.
I apologize if I have gotten off topic, but my point is that we must rethink what we are doing and what we believe that we know. This equally applies to your thinking that the wave self-destructs and for some small period of time energy is seemingly lost or should I say misplaced until equilibrium. Just because we are not 100% sure of where that energy is does not mean it is lost we just misplaced it like our car keys being in our pants rather than on the table where we expect them to be.
Furthermore when you talk about the wave-self destructing that is just a mathematical result for a process where we misplaced our keys, okay not keys but we lost track of that energy. At no instant is conservation of energy a misguided processes, it is just that when equilibrium returns is really a case of us finally locating those lost keys i.e. energy
Joe discusses that he is not an physicists but is an engineer and that he cannot let go of the second law. Now Joe I think the fact that you are an engineer and venturing into this is great. First of all engineers tend to be so much more pragmatic than physicist. Me I am a geophysicist by education, so perhaps I reside somewhere between an engineer and a true physicist in all of this, anyhow I like to think that I am very pragmatic when compared to a 100% physicst, i.e. I am one who looks for the simple answers.
I am not sure if you read my paper concerning the second law titled “second law and lost work” see my webpage http://www.newthermodynamics and look under my papers Plaese read it is written in the simplest form I could envisiom. Of course one of the referee’s did not want it published saying : “I believe that the author is right but I cannot allow 150 yrs of indoctrination to be taken down by such a simple argument” I may have those words struck on my gravestone lol .
Now in that paper I take the very fundamental definition of the second law wherein it says it applies to an isolated system. If you believe that the atmosphere has mass and is in a gravitational field, then any useful system must expand hence must upwardly displace this mass, hence there is no such thing as an isolated system, when talking about useful systems. Useful systems are systems that power toys built by engineers
I further challenge you Joe to give me an example of something that can be explained by the second law that cannot be explained in simpler terms whether it be lost work as I describe or friction or anything. All energy loses have simpler explanations then what we were taught that being the illogical second law.
And I am sorry if this means that your well intended books need to be rewritten. It is all part of that wall of indignity. Human nature means that we defend that of which we taught until our funeral. This is why physics is the slowest science to change of any of them
A quote from Tolstoy “I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth, if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives”
Taken from a paper: T. Gold, “New Ideas in Science”J.of sci. Exploration Vol 3 No 2 pp 103-112, (1989)
Joe states: “As for gravity causing the formation of stars, I say that is a bunch of hooey. “
I am sorry bbut here I disagree. Remember that as more mass accumulates and radius’s go down then the forces increases. In so far as you could jump like a basketball player on the moon, when on the sun you probably would not be able to stand up.
I will however read your reference.
Thanks again Joe for your views
Cheers and all the best Kent
Okay, here goes….
Kent:“In that traditional view there can be states that are not equilibrium states and as such we were taught that seemingly in these confused states the conservation of energy can seemingly be forgotten but energy will be conserved once equilibrium returns.”
Response: This is not what we are taught. Both energy and mass are conserved at all times, and independently of each other, that is until you begin to speak relativity. That is NOT what this is about. Energy is conserved always, that is why the math for thermo works properly. The two most fundamental courses for any engineering course (and should be mandatory for any physical science) are Statics and Dynamics. The governing law for both is that the sum of the forces must equal zero. The difference in dynamics is that we now permit motion. There is no loss on the conservation laws.
Kent: “I no longer believe in such things.”
Response: Belief is not relevant for science, proper interpretation of experimental results to confirm your observations are. If you wish to interpret the results and data differently, that is fine. But that does not prove that everyone else’s interpretation is not correct, it only show a difference in interpretation/understanding.
Kent: “Me I believe that energy is conserved at all times, it just that our logic is confused. Basically this is what you are doing. When you state “energy is lost for a process yet present in the system” you are bang on. However I would argue that the lost energy is a misguided concept. In other words just because we have lost track of where that energy is, does not mean the energy is lost. Moreover the fact that we lost track of the energy has nothing to do with entropy, it is all misinterpretation by us.”
Response: That the energy can no longer be used by the reaction under consideration is what I’m talking about. I am NOT saying the ‘lost’ energy is missing or not conserved, I am saying that it is no longer available for the process – it has been dispersed in such a way that it is rendered useless. That is the measure of entropy. We have not lost track of the energy, we know exactly where it is (statistically speaking) and that we cannot use it anymore. This is an empirical result and there are no know exceptions. This and only this is the crux of my argument that the concept of entropy – energy that is present but unavailable to do the required work, that’s all. If you want to rename it, that’s fine, but if you lose this intended and valid consequence, that ALL reactions run downhill, then you have missed the mark.
Kent: “This is why I gave you the two possibilities of kinetic particle collision. i.e. gas molecules in a box. We assume all such collision are elastic in thermodynamics. The reality is that they are in all likelihood not elastic collisions. In other words we have the transfer of mechanical energy between the molecules so that momentum is conserved along with photon or photons i.e heat. And these photons become part of the surrounding blackbody radiation hence are lost amongst hoardes of other various freq photons (blackbody radiation). Eventually these extra photons are passed onto the walls resulting in an infinitesimally small increase in the wall molecule’s energy, which is then passed back onto the gas molecules within that box”
Response: You are re-defining the experimental conditions. You are finding rescue mechanisms by imposing conditions that are not part of the definition of the problem. What you are describing is absorption of energy by the boundary, which implies a closed system. Again this is not what destroys the standing wave, its the random collisions between the particles themselves; the boundary only serves to define the nodes and permit the standing wave structure to begin with. The experiment was not designed to show reality, just to illustrate the definition of lost work, ie unavailable energy. Work and energy are not the same. Work requires energy and is defined only for a specific task; energy can exist and do no work for that task. Lumping all energy into one bucket and/or lumping all work into one bucket has unintended consequences.
Kent: “Furthermore when you talk about the wave-self destructing that is just a mathematical result for a process where we misplaced our keys, okay not keys but we lost track of that energy. At no instant is conservation of energy a misguided processes, it is just that when equilibrium returns is really a case of us finally locating those lost keys i.e. energy”
Response: No no no! The wave is losing its structure – this will happen regardless of the properties of the boundary. It can be modeled mathematically but it is a purely physical process. The structure is lost and nothing can bring it back without external stimulation. No energy is lost, the particles are just moving more randomly due to collisions that are not head on.
Kent: “And I am sorry if this means that your well intended books need to be rewritten. It is all part of that wall of indignity. Human nature means that we defend that of which we taught until our funeral.”
Response: Really? We are not talking about ideas such as the big bang which have no experimental proof, we are talking about engineering principles that are used to increase efficiency, principle that work and can be tested. There is nothing indignant with using ideas that work to create better tools and processes. BTW, I do not defend all of what I was taught, much of it is wrong, but that is another subject for a different forum:-)
Looking for simplicity is not always the best approach. Yes, I like the KISS principle and will often communicate via email using only three sentences to try to insure that the reader understands the most important parts, but that does not mean that what I’m communicating is in any way simple. And it is also true that many of the laws of physics can be expressed in simple terms, but that does not mean they are simple. The one thing I have learned is that both science and engineering take shortcuts, often limiting themselves to first and second order systems. For example the most overused but very useful approximation is the Taylor series which can transform a nonlinear system into a linear system by simply ignoring higher order term. This is very useful indeed but it does not reflect reality. There are no point charges, most systems are non-linear, and energy lost to a process is not recoverable.
Keep on digging!!!
-Joe
P.S. You have done well to pull me back into the conversation. While do not agree with your hypothesis, I applaud your diligence, determination and patience.
Joe
Please do not get me wrong. I agree that matter and/or energy is conserved. What I was talking about is my vague memories of my 4th thermo course where we discussed states that were not readily clearly definable. To me your talking about constant energy within a system but the entropy increases would be one of those cases.
Clearly you cannot have an entropy increase in an isothermal system without an there being an energy increase. This come from Clausisus’ first interpretation of entropy that being something (entropy) that is multiplied by temp gives energy.
So when I say that I no longer believe in such things I am saying that I no longer believe that there confused states (perturbations if you prefer) wherein energy is seemingly lost or unaccounted for. As in your example of a wave disappearing
Joe states: “I am NOT saying the ‘lost’ energy is missing or not conserved, I am saying that it is no longer available for the process – it has been dispersed in such a way that it is rendered useless.”
And to this I would answer . How is it dispersed in an isometric (constant V) system. Where did it go?????? I mean if equilibrium is a condition of equal dispersal of energy and/or molecules so that each mean volume is equally represented. Therefore you question becomes unrealistic.
Now if the system expands then yes it can disperse some more. But this becomes my point. This is how we are traditionally taught i.e. entropy has increased And it is here that I say wait a minute. Let us ignore the fact that entropy lacks the clarity of one well defined definition. And let us bite our teeth into it. It is not the concept that the entropy has increased in the expanding system that has caused the energy loss. It is because
That expanding system is not isolated rather it is surrounded by matter with mass in a gravitational field. And this is why energy is lost. To deny this is to deny that our atmosphere has mass in a gravitational field or it is to deny that our atmosphere surrounds the system.
So joe go back to your constant volume system. Despite whatever you have been taught, you cannot lose energy in an isometric system onto the surroundings as you will in an expanding/useful system. Another way of looking at this is you cannot have an entropy increases, unless something within that system changes from the perspective of energy. Thinks about it.
1) How can entropy increase if volume remains constant? It is a gibberish thought
Particles cannot become more random if you have the same energy, same mean molecular volume
2) entropy is something that when multiplied by temperature give energy as Clausius first defined it in the 1850’s. By its very definition an entropy increase in an isothermal system means an energy increase. Of course to me herein I would simply substitute entropy for heat capacity and say realize that since there is no volume increase, then there is no entropy increase.
Of course the more logical thing becomes throw out entropy because it lends itself to confusion.
If you do not believe me that an entropy increases has in its very essence the thought of volume increase just look at Physical Chemistry. Whenever chemists calculate entropy change is calculated based upon a logarithmic function of volume change.
This has to stop. Physical chemistry has to learn that our atmosphere has mass contained in a gravitational field and that it surrounds their experiments, hence we must rethink how we write this stuff. This does not mean that we must throw logarithmic functionality rather we must learn that logarithmic functionality often comes from the work done in displacing our atmosphere.
Does the above scare me. Well not to much, it is just that in order to handle that properly I will need someone or someones who are fluent in physical chemistry and understand the problem that it faces/. And this is going to take a massive rewriting of the science.
The same applies to engineers. People like you joe will have to realize that thermodynamics as taught needs a rewrite with the understanding that work is lost by all useful systems, i.e. system that expand. And that this work is lost onto the surrounding atmosphere. Luckily for pragmatic engineers this will not be the Herculean task that faces Physical Chemistry
So Joe I am sorry if you do nopt understand the fundamentals of what I am saying. I cannot be more explicit.
Our atmosphere has mass, and its exists in gravitational field. Hence you cannot expand any system without displacing its mass against gravity.
Joe states: “You are re-defining the experimental conditions. You are finding rescue mechanisms by imposing conditions that are not part of the definition of the problem.”
Not really joe I am giving you options as to what can happen. And I repeat that your concept of entropy increase in a constant volume constant energy system is gibberish even if I do not like the use of the term entropy.
Random collisions : If they destroy the wave then it is a nonelastic collision, hence my analysis. The other option are
1) elastic collision and all energy of molecules is conserved hence wavefunction representing the mean particle in that system stays constant Hence wavefunction cannot collapse. Unless of course you mean one molecule loses energy then that lost energy is passed onto a different molecule. Nothing ahs changed from the system perspective although you could argue a particular molecule has changed,
2) isothermal entropy increase, then there was an input of energy into the system, hence the system was never isolated as you put in description
Joe states: No The wave is losing its structure – this will happen regardless of the properties of the boundary. It can be modeled mathematically but it is a purely physical process. The structure is lost and nothing can bring it back without external stimulation. No energy is lost, the particles are just moving more randomly due to collisions that are not head on.
Now Joe I here walk a dangerous path because it has been a few decades since my 4th yr thermodynamics class. No matter logic dictates what I say about a physical process. Just because you mathematical model lacks clarity, it is not my fault. Part of the reason for the lack of clarity concerning your wavefunction collapsing is the lack of clarity of entropy. I can repeat what I have said herein but I trust that you are capable of understanding that if your wavefunction collapses then its energy is passed onto another molecule and/or resides somewhere else in the system.
Joe states: “Really? We are not talking about ideas such as the big bang”
I know that we are talking about big bang. However this is a continuation of what I was previously discussing. Lost work, once it is understood as work done onto our atmosphere, then entropy and the second law are shattered. Once entropy is shattered concerning the way it is generally taught then we must rethink and rewrite thermodynamics. This has implication to most realms of the sciences including Big Bang, chemistry, engineering, physics and even biology . and this is just scratching the surface.
To me the mistake that I discuss surpasses all previous science blunders.
Of course how do I convince the Joe’s of the world whether they be Joe average or Joe the engineer
Like I said Joe ask yourself, and then tell me what you disagree with
Note:My answers are on the RHS with double exclamations
Does our atmosphere have mass? Yes!!
Is it in a gravitational field? Yes!!
So how can work being done onto it be ant different than work done on any mass being upwardly displaced in gravitational field? It is not!!
Why is it not discussed in traditional thermodynamics? Gross oversight!!
Does entropy have any real meaning? Not really??
Could it be that the simpleton Kent is right? Only a humble scientist can answer that!!
Cheers and thanks again Joe
Kent
This will be my final post on this and please note that what follows may seem like gibberish if the Latex engine is not working as expected (i’m experimenting).
Kent: “1) How can entropy increase if volume remains constant? It is a gibberish thought
Particles cannot become more random if you have the same energy, same mean molecular volume”
Easy (if the latex works). S1 is for the standing wave where motion is only along one axis. S2 form after collisions and then motion will be random along three axes (three times as many microstates). This satisfies ALL conditions of my original experiment.
I hope you can read latex if this does not parse as I cannot edit comments. You are free to reject the math.
-Joe
Joe what you have written is just math:
Now if your entropy change occurs at constant temperature (T) then in terms of energy you are saying
(sorry I am not versed in latex)
Energy change = T(deta S) = Tk(In3@-In@)
So you are saying that you have a significant energy change? Or are you still professing an isothermal entropy change without any energy change (something I believe is impossible no matter if you believe in traditional thermo or what I am saying)
I mean where does the energy come from?
Or is your isothermal entropy change just because the particle in question is traveling along one axis and then after collision it is traveling along 3 axis. I guess I must ask what is your definition of entropy? Is it simply axis dependent?
I personally have never heard of a system’s entropy being dependent upon chosen coordinates. Perhaps someone has decided that in terms of their version of entropy it is. I would think of it as a poorly structured head game. I hope it is not in a textbook like that. Moreover I am of the belief that it is of little benefit to think of 1 particle. Sure you can mean energy, volume, entropy etc BUT I was taught to think of an ensemble of particles when we discuss things like a system’s entropy. And for an ensemble of particles in an equilibrium state the particles are equally likely to be traveling down any one of the three axis in a standard x,y,z co-ordinate system.
anyhow thanks for the challenging thought
Me personally I have to learn how to defend my position and although I do not fully agree with what you write Joe I really appreciated the practice and the fact that you at least made me think, although I believe we got off topic.
I may ask this forum if they have had enough of me or are they interested in anything else. I could fill this blog for a year, but what do you want to hear/discuss. Certainly rewriting thermodynamics over the last decades has given me so much insight, as I have had to tackle so much while removing entropy. I am certainly far from perfect in this endeavor but I like to think that I am on the right track. And to know that others may actually be reading what I say albeit not wanting to speak out, is enlightening although I am walking a very lonely (generally unappreciated) path.
thanks again Kent
Kent, I simply cannot leave this hanging here, so let me elaborate just a wee bit. I would have done this sooner but I have been rather busy. My equation was:
Kent: “Joe what you have written is just math”
Yes it is. Sometimes math is useful, but it can be misused. I believe that there are some who actually believe that math is more than just a language, but I’m not one of them. Just like with the written word, we can say some very obtuse and misleading statement using math. From my perspective, one of the biggest blunders when using math is the singularity. Not that the is anything wrong with the singularity, but you cannot emerge from one and have any real meaning. Another example is energy versus work. Both have the same units but they are not the same thing. Often work is defined as the change in kinetic energy between two states. But this says nothing about internal energy or potential energy, so clearly, just because they have the same units, they do not represent the same quantity. But in an ill formed mathematical expression, even when performing rigorous dimensional analysis, very wrong conclusions can be reach from a perfectly valid mathematical statement.
Kent: “Now if your entropy change occurs at constant temperature (T) then in terms of energy you are saying (sorry I am not versed in latex)
Energy change = T (deta S) = Tk (In3@-In@)
So you are saying that you have a significant energy change?Or are you still professing an isothermal entropy change without any energy change (something I believe is impossible no matter if you believe in traditional thermo or what I am saying)”
All you did was to multiply both sides of the given equation by temperature, which cancels out the temperature in Boltzmann’s constant. I would argue that there is only a disorganization in the internal energy of the system but the reaction as defined by the equation is isothermal – we can cancel out T. If my equation is accurate – and I should have written differently:
Then indeed if
The entropy has changed – it has increased. But is entropy times temperature the same as energy, are they really equivalent? My argument (and others) is that just like work and energy are different, entropy and energy are different. Work Joules are Joules that can perform the specified action; Entropy Joules are Joules which cannot perform the specified action. Nothing else.
Kent: “Or is your isothermal entropy change just because the particle in question is traveling along one axis and then after collision it is traveling along 3 axis.I guess I must ask what is your definition of entropy? Is it simply axis dependent?””
Yes, the isothermal entropy change is just because the particle in question is no longer traveling in just one direction but now its free to travel in any direction. But entropy itself is not axis dependent, it is process dependent. The process was a standing wave.
Also the factor of three is a simple approximation as the number of possible micro-states is more like:
where q is the total number of possible states each particle can be in and N is the number of particles in the system. For the standing wave q = 2 (travel either in the + or – direction along the x-axis, otherwise q = 6 (for three axes all the while ignoring rotation).
Finally please understand that my goal is not to say that your perception that ‘entropy is an ill defined concept’ is incorrect, because entropy IS ill defined or at the very least very difficult to understand. Very few people really understand the full implication. Neither of us has it completely right. My purpose is point out that there is more at stake here than just a redefinition. No science is perfect as we are not perfect, but I am more than confident that the observed ‘laws’ of physics are consistent and thermodynamics, which is based more on observation is very strong empirically while perhaps somewhat short theoretically.
Keep working your craft and flesh out your ideas and understanding – iron sharpens iron.
-Joe
P.S. We did get way off topic, but that’s fine with me, it not my post 🙂
So you just could not leave it alone Joe. That s fine. I like a man with a conscience
Joe states: From my perspective, one of the biggest blunders when using math is the singularity.
I agree a singularity is a point with not a lot of meaning and hence too much conjecture. Hmm it sounds a lot like entropy
Okay I will grant you that entropy has a true mathematical conscript, which is clearer than a singularity but still it remains a terms whose meaning is best as a mathematical construct than anything that one can put into words.
Joe states: “Another example is energy versus work. Both have the same units but they are not the same thing.”
They are certainly not necessarily the same thing but we can say that it takes energy to do work. I do not know if you have read any of my papers but one thing I deal with is this: The energy of an ideal gas is 3NkT/2 it sounds so simple. But the work that a gas can do can readily be shown to be NkT. In other words by it’s very nature a gas seemingly cannot transfer all of its energy into work.
So what give. Well the implication is a maximum efficiency of 66.6%. So I sit there and ponder is this a co-ordinate thing or is it based upon the fact that all the gas’s energy is spread out equally along 3 orthogonal axis but work is only done along two axis or if you prefer the movement of a 2-d plane along one of the axis.
I am writing this in hopes that someone with greater mathematical skill than I see a correlation that I am touching upon but have not quite come to grips with yet
So Joe I will give that work and energy are similar but there are subtle difference that could use clarity.
Concerning my writing:
Energy change = T (deta S) = Tk (In3@-In@)
Joe states: All you did was to multiply both sides of the given equation by temperature, which cancels out the temperature in Boltzmann’s constant.
From a mathematical perspective yes. But you joe are the one adhering to traditional style arguments. In doing so you cannot ignore the traditional result that isothermal entropy change is energy change.
Me given the option I would throw that st6uff out and start over. See how the science now writes and then realize that entropy is a mathematical construct that along with Boltzman’s constant (k) allows for Boltzmann’s statistical based analysis to equal empirical findings. My point remains that we obtain these same empirical finding by rethinking thermodynamics without using Boltzmann’s math.
In other words Boltzmann’s math is great stuff but we must rethink what it really means.
And of course this is what I am trying to do, that being rethink the science just as you have pointed out by saying energy is not necessarily work but work requires energy.
Joe states: “I would argue that there is only a disorganization in the internal energy of the system but the reaction as defined by the equation is isothermal – we can cancel out T. If my equation is accurate – and I should have written differently:
Then indeed if
The entropy has changed – it has increased. But is entropy times temperature the same as energy, are they really equivalent?”
I repeat. You cannot take entropy in it traditional Boltzmann sense and say that you have an entropy change but no energy change. Because doing so then you are picking your preferred parts of traditional thermodynamics over the other parts. I have said before that I tried that for years and ended up with one circular argument after another. I then threw the whole lot out and started over and it was only then that I realized that the whole traditional science is based upon circular logic.
Joe so neither you believe in
And that: dE=TdS
Or you throw both out. There is no middle ground here. Trust me.
Joe states:” Yes, the isothermal entropy change is just because the particle in question is no longer traveling in just one direction but now its free to travel in any direction. But entropy itself is not axis dependent, it is process dependent. The process was a standing wave.”
Joe I fear that you are misguided. Yes a particle can start traveling along one axis and then be traveling along components of all three axis after a collision. So what. We can only concern ourselves with an ensemble of particles. And the science works best when there is equilibrium i.e. equal probabilities of any one molecule moving in an unique direction
So we are stuck talking about mean energy, mean volumes etc etc. You cannot just talk about one particle joe.
And yes I see that your goal is to hang onto entropy. I did that for 4 yrs after I realized something was wrong with thermodynamics. It is so hard to let go. I was introduced to entropy in grade 11, and it was mashed into my head by grade 13. And threw university I never questioned it. Now I realize that I was sailing on a ship of fools. I am sorry it is nothing personal. Joe just try me. Name something that cannot be explained without entropy and I will try to write a blog about it when time permits.
Let go Joe
Look at some of the history of the science
1) 1850’s: Entropy introduced by Clauisus as something which when multiplied by temp gives energy
2) Mid-late 19th century: it was understood that PdV was lost work but no one knew why but you can see a possible association with volume change
3) Early 20th century Boltzmann formulates his theories. The likes of Plank and Mach were not thrilled with the world be defined strictly via probabilities i.e. Boltzmann’s ideas were not fully accepted until a couple of decades after he committed suicide
4) Mid 20th century: the concept of entropy is enshrined into our skulls starting in high school and ending with full indoctrination by graduation of any of the sciences
Joe ask yourself: If in 2) mid-late 19th century, science realized that the displacement of our atmosphere required work as defined by PdV, do you think Boltzmann’s math would have taken hold. Perhaps. Then again it may have had to wait until Shannon’s information theory. You see the fact that Boltzmann’s math works for both the sciences and information theory shows the power of the math.
The reason that Boltzmann’s math explains thermodynamics is that it was structured to do so by calculating Boltzamnn’s constant so that it equated this math to our empirical data here on Earth. Moreover its very existence requires that isothermal entropy change equates to energy change.
The problem lay in our insistence that entropy change relates to volume via the number of accessible states. Hence the 20th century indoctrination of randomness.
The reality is that Boltzmann’s entropy relates to the number of accessible states and this has little to do with volume and all to do with accessible energy – or if you prefer all to do with a system’s total energy. Change a system’s energy and the number of accessible energy states changes. Period. Volume be damned!
So Joe no matter if you accept my stance or the traditional one by which you have been indoctrinated, you cannot change Boltzmann’s entropy in an isothermal process without changing a systems energy!!!!
So how does Boltzmann’s brilliant math change.
1) k may not be universal, rather it is a function of experiments being done in Earth’s gravity
2) we remove the volume associated notion of randomness from the science
3) accept that our atmosphere has mass in a gravitational field and that its upward displacement by expanding systems requires work
4) realize that no useful system here on earth is isolated! Hence the second law does not apply to such useful expanding systems. Useful systems being systems that expand (isobarically or otherwise) hence systems that can move man and/or machines
I am sure that I missed something but I think that you get the idea.
Cheers Kent