James Putnam wrote: "I don't see how this claim can be applied to thermodynamic entropy as defined by Clausius."

The principle "entropy always increases" has been DEDUCED by Clausius but the deduction is invalid (this can be shown on a few pages) so the principle, in the Clausius' interpretation at least, is just utter nonsense. Jos Uffink calls it "red herring" at the end of the following...

view entire post

James Putnam wrote: "I don't see how this claim can be applied to thermodynamic entropy as defined by Clausius."

The principle "entropy always increases" has been DEDUCED by Clausius but the deduction is invalid (this can be shown on a few pages) so the principle, in the Clausius' interpretation at least, is just utter nonsense. Jos Uffink calls it "red herring" at the end of the following quotation:

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00000313/

Jos Uffink: "Snow stands up for the view that exact science is, in its own right, an essential part of civilisation, and should not merely be valued for its technological applications. Anyone who does not know the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and is proud of it too, exposes oneself as a Philistine. Snow's plea will strike a chord with every physicist who has ever attended a birthday party. But his call for cultural recognition creates obligations too. Before one can claim that acquaintance with the Second Law is as indispensable to a cultural education as Macbeth or Hamlet, it should obviously be clear what this law states. This question is surprisingly difficult. The Second Law made its appearance in physics around 1850, but a half century later it was already surrounded by so much confusion that the British Association for the Advancement of Science decided to appoint a special committee with the task of providing clarity about the meaning of this law. However, its final report (Bryan 1891) did not settle the issue. Half a century later, the physicist/philosopher Bridgman still complained that there are almost as many formulations of the second law as there have been discussions of it (Bridgman 1941, p. 116). And even today, the Second Law remains so obscure that it continues to attract new efforts at clarification. A recent example is the work of Lieb and Yngvason (1999)......The historian of science and mathematician Truesdell made a detailed study of the historical development of thermodynamics in the period 1822-1854. He characterises the theory, even in its present state, as 'a dismal swamp of obscurity' (1980, p. 6) and 'a prime example to show that physicists are not exempt from the madness of crowds' (ibid. p. 8).......Clausius' verbal statement of the second law makes no sense.... All that remains is a Mosaic prohibition ; a century of philosophers and journalists have acclaimed this commandment ; a century of mathematicians have shuddered and averted their eyes from the unclean.....Seven times in the past thirty years have I tried to follow the argument Clausius offers....and seven times has it blanked and gravelled me.... I cannot explain what I cannot understand.....This summary leads to the question whether it is fruitful to see irreversibility or time-asymmetry as the essence of the second law. Is it not more straightforward, in view of the unargued statements of Kelvin, the bold claims of Clausius and the strained attempts of Planck, to give up this idea? I believe that Ehrenfest-Afanassjewa was right in her verdict that the discussion about the arrow of time as expressed in the second law of the thermodynamics is actually a red herring."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

view post as summary

Tom,

Thank You, Thank You, Thank You.

Someone is actually reading what I write. OK Then, before I reply, one question you must answer for me, as you are a physicist.

It's my balloon question. We heat up a cold balloon & it goes from x amount of Space to 3x. Where did the new Space come from? [please don't tell me the particles are moving farther away from each other; I want to...

view entire post

Tom,

Thank You, Thank You, Thank You.

Someone is actually reading what I write. OK Then, before I reply, one question you must answer for me, as you are a physicist.

It's my balloon question. We heat up a cold balloon & it goes from x amount of Space to 3x. Where did the new Space come from? [please don't tell me the particles are moving farther away from each other; I want to know if you agree that there is more Space, and if so, where that Space came from].

Now, back to your comments:

------

"My Latest Thoughts: Why do large things move slower than small things?" [my question]

They don't. [your answer]

Your persistence is admirable. Your physics, however, is demonstrably wrong. Galileo disproved your latest thought, which is based on Aristotle's philosophy, not on modern science. [your answer]

---------

My further response:

I am not talking about Galileo dropping heavy and light objects from a tower.

Galileo wasn't thinking about matter turning to space based on rate of motion.

What I am asking myself (and in a post far far away) is why large things are large and small things are small and why large things move slow (planets) and almost exclusively small things at the quantum level move fast (elctrons, photons).

And my answer, and in sync with CIG, is that even though you may start with a large thing, it gets smaller as it moves faster (it's equivalent mass turning to Space). Mass can accumulate (congeal) only when it moves slow, otherwise, if moving fast, it would manifest its spatial characteristic. This fits into my interpretation of Time Dilation as well:

"Where there is a different time there must be a different

place. Where there is a different place, there is a different

space. Where there are different spaces, there are different

volumes. CIG theory explains the creation of new volumes of

space created as the result of different times imparted onto

the world universe and as a direct result of the relativistic

nature of nature."

The more "Time Dilation", the more Space.

Fast things cannot get large since they remain Spatial. Slow things can get large, since they remain massively matter. Matter and Space convert to one another through their rate of travel.

This I am now clear on. I am though still confused how large slow things are comprised of fast small things.



__________

Your second comment:

OK my terminology of mechanics/dynamics may be off, agree. I will make a concerted effort to only use the words in their proper context.

As for the theory & what I was saying:



"Quantum dynamics approaches Classical dynamics as the rate of matter (of traveling particles) approaches pure stillness (velocity = zero). At zero velocity, the two (quantum & classical theory) are indistinguishable. At velocity = c, Matter becomes Space."

Absolute zero is a Black Hole since there is no movement at the singularity. I believe some interesting work came out of Univeristy of Chicago where Bose Einstein condensates mimics black holes.

Spoken differently, and as correlated to DeBroglie Matter Waves, and the ability for large particles to experience diffraction (Germer ?? electrons??), any moving particle will have a spatial constituent aspect, and being spatial, will have wavelike properties (quantum). No movement will not result in any spatial aspect to whatever the "thing" we are talking about, and so will not have quantum properties ( no wave aspect, no diffraction, etc.). No movement = Black Hole singularty.

So, what I am saying here is that there is no distinguishing between Quantum and Classical at zero movement. Or, in other words, zero movement is the only true isolated case of what Classical truly means.

Any movement and voila! we have a spatial entity, and the "particle" can go through both slits! When still, we are back to a point particle (dot on screen). This is also my solution to the double slit conundrum.

I know nothing about Bose statistics and space.

If you find a link (salvageable component), please expand on my theory.

Did you read the whole thing?

THX

doug

view post as summary

Indeed, the reply to this thread link is missing. So John this is in respect of your kast post in thethread you started 11/8 16.43.

John

Clarification first, though you probably meant what follows. In respect of any given existential event, it does not only occur, but in doing so also creates physically existent ‘effects’ as the result of an interaction as it occurs with certain...

view entire post

Indeed, the reply to this thread link is missing. So John this is in respect of your kast post in thethread you started 11/8 16.43.

John

Clarification first, though you probably meant what follows. In respect of any given existential event, it does not only occur, but in doing so also creates physically existent ‘effects’ as the result of an interaction as it occurs with certain physical phenomena. Now, as per an earlier post, the extent to which these correlate is a physical issue. But the generic/logical point still remains. The existence of these effects has resulted, via evolution, in sentient organisms, ie entities which are able to process these effects if they are physically received. That is, in the context of the recipient sensory system, these effects are a representation of the existential event. As stated, the extent to which they are an accurate &/or comprehensive representation is a physical issue.

So, apart from the somewhat obvious fact that they are created as the result of an interaction with whatever existed, they are separate. That is, the existential sequence continues in cause and effect mode, the effects travel, they are not part of that sequence. One of the physical features of these effects (especially the light one) being that the physically existent state which is utilised by the sensory system remains more or less the same. Otherwise sensing would probably never have developed because the function would virtually be useless. As they are physically existent, they are, as is whatever occurred which they represent, independent (ie objective) of the sensory system. That is, the effects are received. With an understanding as to how these work, we can infer what occurred, ie what created them upon interaction when it occurred. The fact that we exist, irrespective of what that ‘actually’ means, entails a closed system. There is no infinity. There is no extrinsic reference.

Measurement is entirely different from identification of existence. This involves comparing manifest attributes against conceptual constants, ie rate of change, redness, spatial position, etc. In other words, within a closed system, conceptual constants are absolutes, and hence particularly useful as references against which to effect comparisons. The alternative being to compare one thing with another, then another, etc, etc. There cannot be any ‘uncertainty’ in physical existence, because otherwise, as I asked above, how does it exist. Physical existence is not akin to a form of anarchy, it is just our inability to differentiate every aspect in a physically existent state. Remember, sensory systems developed because there was advantage in them, and that advantage was in survival, not analysing the very nature of our own existence.

Duration is not an effect, it is a unit of measurement which enables the differentiation of rates at which changes occur. What particular ‘activity’ caused the alteration is irrelevant. Timing is purely concerned with rate. It is a human creation, so having zero duration, or a point, is entirely credible. It does not force anything to ‘happen’ in physical existence. The issue being that, for physical existence to occur there must be a point at which there is no change. There must then be another point at which there is no change, which is the next physically existent state in the existential sequence. It is not a case of “zero activity”, it is a case of being such a short duration that there is no activity/change discernable. As I keep on saying, whatever constitutes physical existence cannot exist unless it is in a physically existent state, and it can only be in one such state at a time. A film appears continuous, pictures on the TV look homogeneous, etc, but they actually comprise discrete events. Continuous is, like infinity, contrary to nature of physical existence. It is a metaphysical concept humans have invented. And remember to differentiate physical substance from the physical state it is in at any given time.

The way I express change is not a view of mine. The point, again, is not what causes it, but about how we know of it. And that is because we receive physical inputs which when compared reveal difference. Difference/change is not physically existent.

Think about the notion of ‘activity’. It involves change, something doing something, which results in something else. You are depicting ‘activity’ as if it is some process which has no physical existence.

Paul

view post as summary

John

I know, and so was time, but neither were solved.

“You keep repeating the same simple assertion; That reality must be a sequential series of still frames, with no other explanation of how they occur”

I repeat a small number of facts (not assertions) about how, generically, the form of existence we are able to investigate must occur. How this actually manifests is for...

view entire post

John

I know, and so was time, but neither were solved.

“You keep repeating the same simple assertion; That reality must be a sequential series of still frames, with no other explanation of how they occur”

I repeat a small number of facts (not assertions) about how, generically, the form of existence we are able to investigate must occur. How this actually manifests is for others to find out. I do appreciate your challenge, because at first it worried me. But this view relates to seeing physical existence as substance, then referring to the causes of alteration to it as if they are some other substance. Whereas, what we see as substance is properties (for want of a better label) which innately alter, either of themselves and/or due to an interaction with others. There is a reason for this alteration, but there is no ‘other thing’ causing it. The flaw is in conceiving of there being something which is then altered by something else. Rather than the something being what changes. If you think about the first concept, then there would never be an end, because there would always be another something, ad infinitum. In which case, physical existence would not occur, because there would never be a definitive state.

The point here is that it illustrates the necessity of starting with a proper understanding of physical existence. We must start with what must be so, then find out how that occurs. Because since we are dealing with existence, it is so easy to invoke beliefs, or just get things wrong, such as failing to differentiate the physical reality of light from the existential reality it represents. And the start point is that there is something, and it alters, which then means….The real problem here being that this is, for obvious reasons, contrary to the way in which humans see reality as constituted.

When you say “In order for the distinct parts to be anything beyond isolated points, they have to interact.” the question is, why? Assuming the ‘distinct parts’ are properly identified, ie properties, then they are changeable in themselves. They do not need something else to change them, though no doubt most of the time the change is the result of an interaction. Another way of addressing this point is to ask how do they interact? In other words, what ever ‘they’ actually are must be innately capable of interaction, otherwise there would never be any.

Paul

view post as summary