sci.physics

On Mar 2, 2:39=A0am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> /bozen2004/proceedings/CornishBowden/...
> Athel Cornish-Bowden: "The concept of entropy was introduced to
> thermodynamics by Clausius, who deliberately chose an obscure term for
> it, wanting a word based on Greek roots that would sound similar to
> "energy". In this way he hoped to have a word that would mean the same
> to everyone regardless of their language, and, as Cooper [2] remarked,
> he succeeded in this way in finding a word that meant the same to
> everyone: NOTHING. From the beginning it proved a very difficult
> concept for other thermodynamicists, even including such accomplished
> mathematicians as Kelvin and Maxwell; Kelvin, indeed, despite his own
> major contributions to the subject, never appreciated the idea of
> entropy [3]. The difficulties that Clausius created have continued to
> the present day, with the result that a fundamental idea that is
> absolutely necessary for understanding the theory of chemical
> equilibria continues to give trouble, not only to students but also to
> scientists who need the concept for their work."
>
> /archive/00000313/
> Jos Uffink: "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."

Well, many of them understand the economics of entropy
well enough, but not the materials of entropy. Which is why robots,
lasers, and computers were developed for the wanks.



>
> /popsci/etextbook/6261/
> Arieh Ben-Naim: "I waited patiently to ask something, though I was not
> sure what the question would be. What is this thing called entropy and
> why does it always increase? Is it something we can see, touch or feel
> with any of our senses? Upon finishing her exposition, the lecturer
> interjected, "If you do not understand the Second Law, do not be
> discouraged. You are in good company. You will not be able to
> understand it at this stage, but you will understand it when you study
> statistical thermodynamics next year.".....Not only do we not know the
> source which supplies the fuel for the ever-increasing entropy, but no
> source is permitted, in principle, no feeding mechanism and no
> provision for any supplies of anything from the outside. Besides, how
> is it that "structure" and "order" have crept into the discussion of
> entropy, a concept that was defined in terms of heat and
> temperature?......I taught thermodynamics and statistical mechanics
> for many years. During those years, I came to realize that the mystery
> associated with the Second Law can never be removed within classical
> thermodynamics......I believe that the turning point in my own
> understanding of entropy, hence also in my ability to explain it to my
> students came when I was writing an article.....Once the haze
> dissipated, everything became crystal clear. Not only clear, but in
> fact obvious; entropy's behavior which was once quite difficult to
> understand, was reduced to a simple matter of common sense. Moreover,
> I suddenly realized that one does not need to know any statistical
> mechanics to understand the Second Law. This might sound
> contradictory, having just claimed that statistical mechanics harbors
> the clues to understanding the Second Law...."
>
> /chemistry/
> Arieh Ben-Naim: "A FAREWELL TO ENTROPY. The principal message of this
> book is that thermodynamics and statistical mechanics will benefit
> from replacing the unfortunate, misleading and mysterious term
> "entropy" with a more familiar, meaningful and appropriate term...."
>
> Pentcho Valev
> pva...@