Prev: The universe is expanding outward because of emptiness expansion of the 4th dimension
Next: is light/radiative energy potential or kinetic or both?
From: BURT on 5 Feb 2010 14:41
On Feb 5, 1:01 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> Open Letter to: Martin Rees, President of the Royal Society
>
> Copy to: Professor John Pethica, Physical Secretary and Vice-
> President, Professor Sir Michael Berry, Sir Peter Williams CBE,
> Treasurer and Vice-President, Professor Lorna Casselton, Foreign
> Secretary and Vice-President
>
> Dear Dr. Rees,
>
> Classical thermodynamics has been dead for a long time so when in 2001
> a respected scientist, Jos Uffink, declared that a version of the
> second law of thermodynamics ("Entropy always increases") is a RED
> HERRING, this sounded like an epitaph officially putting an end to any
> further discussion:
>
> http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/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' and 'a prime example to show
> that physicists are not exempt from the madness of crowds'. He is
> outright cynical about the respect with which nonmathematicians treat
> the Second Law: "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." From this anthology it emerges that although many
> prominent physicists are firmly convinced of, and express admiration
> for the Second Law, there are also serious complaints, especially from
> mathematicians, about a lack of clarity and rigour in its formulation.
> At the very least one can say that the Second Law suffers from an
> image problem: its alleged eminence and venerability is not perceived
> by everyone who has been exposed to it. What is it that makes this
> physical law so obstreperous that every attempt at a clear formulation
> seems to have failed? Is it just the usual sloppiness of physicists?
> Or is there a deeper problem? And what exactly is the connection with
> the arrow of time and irreversibility? Could it be that this is also
> just based on bluff? Perhaps readers will shrug their shoulders over
> these questions. Thermodynamics is obsolete; for a better
> understanding of the problem we should turn to more recent,
> statistical theories. But even then the questions we are about to
> study have more than a purely historical importance. The problem of
> reproducing the Second Law, perhaps in an adapted version, remains one
> of the toughest, and controversial problems in statistical
> physics.....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."
>
> Einstein's relativity is younger than thermodynamics so its own
> epitaph came only recently:
>
> http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026831.500-what-makes-the-uni...
> "General relativity knits together space, time and gravity.
> Confounding all common sense, how time passes in Einstein's universe
> depends on what you are doing and where you are. Clocks run faster
> when the pull of gravity is weaker, so if you live up a skyscraper you
> age ever so slightly faster than you would if you lived on the ground
> floor, where Earth's gravitational tug is stronger. "General
> relativity completely changed our understanding of time," says Carlo
> Rovelli, a theoretical physicist at the University of the
> Mediterranean in Marseille, France.....It is still not clear who is
> right, says John Norton, a philosopher based at the University of
> Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Norton is hesitant to express it, but his
> instinct - and the consensus in physics - seems to be that space and
> time exist on their own. The trouble with this idea, though, is that
> it doesn't sit well with relativity, which describes space-time as a
> malleable fabric whose geometry can be changed by the gravity of
> stars, planets and matter."
>
> http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/Goodies/passage/index.html
> John Norton: "A common belief among philosophers of physics is that
> the passage of time of ordinary experience is merely an illusion. The
> idea is seductive since it explains away the awkward fact that our
> best physical theories of space and time have yet to capture this
> passage. I urge that we should resist the idea. We know what illusions
> are like and how to detect them. Passage exhibits no sign of being an
> illusion....Following from the work of Einstein, Minkowski and many
> more, physics has given a wonderfully powerful conception of space and
> time. Relativity theory, in its most perspicacious form, melds space
> and time together to form a four-dimensional spacetime. The study of
> motion in space and and all other processes that unfold in them merely
> reduce to the study of an odd sort of geometry that prevails in
> spacetime. In many ways, time turns out to be just like space. In this
> spacetime geometry, there are differences between space and time. But
> a difference that somehow captures the passage of time is not to be
> found. There is no passage of time. There are temporal orderings. We
> can identify earlier and later stages of temporal processes and
> everything in between. What we cannot find is a passing of those
> stages that recapitulates the presentation of the successive moments
> to our consciousness, all centered on the one preferred moment of
> "now." At first, that seems like an extraordinary lacuna. It is, it
> would seem, a failure of our best physical theories of time to capture
> one of time's most important properties. However the longer one works
> with the physics, the less worrisome it becomes....I was, I confess, a
> happy and contented believer that passage is an illusion. It did
> bother me a little that we seemed to have no idea of just how the news
> of the moments of time gets to be rationed to consciousness in such
> rigid doses.....Now consider the passage of time. Is there a
> comparable reason in the known physics of space and time to dismiss it
> as an illusion? I know of none. The only stimulus is a negative one.
> We don't find passage in our present theories and we would like to
> preserve the vanity that our physical theories of time have captured
> all the important facts of time. So we protect our vanity by the
> stratagem of dismissing passage as an illusion."
>
> The problem is that, despite Thomas Kuhn's revolutionary dreams, there
> is no tumultuous "paradigm change"; rather, false theories just
> silently die, burying with themselves an essential part of human
> culture:
>
> ftp://ftp.esat.kuleuven.ac.be/pub/SISTA/markovsky/reports/06-46.pdf
> "From the pedagogical point of view, thermodynamics is a disaster. As
> the authors rightly state in the introduction, many aspects are
> "riddled with inconsistencies". They quote V.I. Arnold, who concedes
> that "every mathematician knows it is impossible to understand an
> elementary course in thermodynamics". Nobody has eulogized this
> confusion more colorfully than the late Clifford Truesdell. On page 6
> of his book "The Tragicomical History of Thermodynamics" 1822-1854
> (Springer Verlag, 1980), he calls thermodynamics "a dismal swamp of
> obscurity". Elsewhere, in despair of trying to make sense of the
> writings of some local heros as De Groot, Mazur, Casimir, and
> Prigogine, Truesdell suspects that there is "something rotten in the
> (thermodynamic) state of the Low Countries" (see page 134 of Rational
> Thermodynamics, McGraw-Hill, 1969)."
>
> http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/hutchison/080616
> "Like bronze idols that are hollow inside, Einstein built a cluster of
> "Potemkin villages," which are false fronts with nothing behind them.
> Grigori Potemkin (17391791) was a general-field marshal, Russian
> statesman, and favorite of Empress Catherine the Great. He is alleged
> to have built facades of non-existent villages along desolate
> stretches of the Dnieper River to impress Catherine as she sailed to
> the Crimea in 1787. Actors posing as happy peasants stood in front of
> these pretty stage sets and waved to the pleased Empress. This
> incident reminds me of the story of Eleanor Roosevelt's Moscow tour
> guide who showed her the living quarters of communist party bosses and
> claimed that these were the apartments of the average Russian worker.
> The incredibly gullible first lady was delighted. Like Catherine, the
> sentimental Eleanor was prone to wishful thinking and was easily
> deceived. What has all this to do with Einstein? The science
> establishment has a powerful romantic desire to believe in Einstein.
> Therefore, they are not only fooled by Einstein's tricks, they are
> prepared to defend his Potemkin villages."
>
> http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a909857880
> Peter Hayes "The Ideology of Relativity: The Case of the Clock
> Paradox" : Social Epistemology, Volume 23, Issue 1 January 2009, pages
> 57-78
> "The gatekeepers of professional physics in the universities and
> research institutes are disinclined to support or employ anyone who
> raises problems over the elementary inconsistencies of relativity. A
> winnowing out process has made it very difficult for critics of
> Einstein to achieve or maintain professional status. Relativists are
> then able to use the argument of authority to discredit these critics.
> Were relativists to admit that Einstein may have made a series of
> elementary logical errors, they would be faced with the embarrassing
> question of why this had not been noticed earlier. Under these
> circumstances the marginalisation of antirelativists, unjustified on
> scientific grounds, is
>
> read more »...

Near light speed heat slows time and increases mass.

Mitch Raemsch
From: eric gisse on 5 Feb 2010 16:10
Stamenin wrote:

[...]

The two of you write so much, and understand so little.
From: "Juan R." González-Álvarez on 7 Feb 2010 11:27
Pentcho Valev wrote on Fri, 05 Feb 2010 01:01:52 -0800:

> Open Letter to: Martin Rees, President of the Royal Society
>
> Copy to: Professor John Pethica, Physical Secretary and Vice- President,
> Professor Sir Michael Berry, Sir Peter Williams CBE, Treasurer and
> Vice-President, Professor Lorna Casselton, Foreign Secretary and
> Vice-President
>
> Dear Dr. Rees,
>
> Classical thermodynamics has been dead for a long time so when in 2001 a
> respected scientist, Jos Uffink, declared that a version of the second
> law of thermodynamics ("Entropy always increases") is a RED HERRING,
> this sounded like an epitaph officially putting an end to any further
> discussion:
>
> http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/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' and 'a prime example to show that physicists are not
> exempt from the madness of crowds'. He is outright cynical about the
> respect with which nonmathematicians treat the Second Law: "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." From this anthology it
> emerges that although many prominent physicists are firmly convinced of,
> and express admiration for the Second Law, there are also serious
> complaints, especially from mathematicians, about a lack of clarity and
> rigour in its formulation. At the very least one can say that the Second
> Law suffers from an image problem: its alleged eminence and venerability
> is not perceived by everyone who has been exposed to it. What is it that
> makes this physical law so obstreperous that every attempt at a clear
> formulation seems to have failed? Is it just the usual sloppiness of
> physicists? Or is there a deeper problem? And what exactly is the
> connection with the arrow of time and irreversibility? Could it be that
> this is also just based on bluff? Perhaps readers will shrug their
> shoulders over these questions. Thermodynamics is obsolete; for a better
> understanding of the problem we should turn to more recent, statistical
> theories. But even then the questions we are about to study have more
> than a purely historical importance. The problem of reproducing the
> Second Law, perhaps in an adapted version, remains one of the toughest,
> and controversial problems in statistical physics.....This summary leads
> to the question whether it is fruitful to see irreversibility or
> time-asymmetry as the essence of the second law. Is it not more
> straightforward, in view of the unargued statements of Kelvin, the bold
> claims of Clausius and the strained attempts of Planck, to give up this
> idea? I believe that Ehrenfest- Afanassjewa was right in her verdict
> that the discussion about the arrow of time as expressed in the second
> law of the thermodynamics is actually a RED HERRING."

Jos Uffink is plaing wrong. Of course, what neither he or you say is that
Truesdell is the father of a formulation of generalized thermodynamics,
which is built over the second law of thermodynamics (d_iS >= 0) and which
gives predicts exatly the same classical phenomena that the clasical
formulation given by Clausius, Kelving and Karatheodory...

(...)


--
http://www.canonicalscience.org/

BLOG:
http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/canonicalsciencetoday/canonicalsciencetoday.html
From: Raymond Yohros on 10 Feb 2010 11:52
On Feb 5, 4:10 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Stamenin wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> The two of you write so much, and understand so little.
>

i dont understand why they are crying about.
newton,faraday and maxwell where all teachers
of einstein. and if there's something the royal
society its all about its finding talent no matr who
or where they come from. faraday was a clear example
of this.
so why deny a.e if he was right!
maybe he did went fishing and did not
much in the end of he's days but the
miracle years where a great triumph
for science. and they where sponsor
by another incredible genius:

max planck

regards
r.y

 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: The universe is expanding outward because of emptiness expansion of the 4th dimension
Next: is light/radiative energy potential or kinetic or both?