Dear Prof. Grzegorz M. Koczan

Interesting question.

What about the use of the Statistical Microscopic Thermodynamics to formulate the second law using the canonical ensemble, as it is done in the classical textbook by Prof. Frederick Reif:

"Fundamental of Statistical & Thermal Physics" (1965) by Prof. F. Reif Mc Graw-Hill"

Kind Regards.

Dear Prof. Pedro L. Contreras E.,

thank you very much for your comment and proposed answer.

A priori the second law of thermodynamics has a phenomenological context, although its truth may have a statistical nature. However, I would rather prefer phenomenological formulations at the beginning.

What formulation of the second principle of thermodynamics is given in Reif's book? How does it differ from the entropic formulation, apart from concretizing the definition of entropy?

Best regards, GMK

Dear Prof. Grzegorz M. Koczan

Thank you for the answer. I will briefly address the basic Prof. F. Reif textbook (Berkeley collection), pp. 281 - 285 and the discussion pp. 285 -286

I quote only the title of the section:

section 7.4 "Basic statements of Statistical thermodynamics"

Statement 2 among the 6 proposed in the book, formulates the second law of thermodynamics in terms of the entropy. I prefer you to read it.

Furthermore, Prof. Reif elaborates a discussion pointing that although statements 0-4 are the macroscopic postulates of thermodynamics, he adds 2 new statements in terms of microstates.

Reif, Frederick, (1965) Statistical Physics (Vol 5 Berkeley collection), Mc_Graw-Hill

I would like to add that nowadays, new books also have coined the term "Statistical Thermodynamics" for Engineers, adding the microscopic part.

In the following monograph by Prof. J. Daily

"Statistical Thermodynamics: An Engineering Approach" by John W. Daily. Cambridge University Press, 2019

The postulates I & II of Microscopic thermodynamics are addressed in section 3.2 pp. 40 in a quite interesting perspective, following Prof. J. Gibbs 1902 formulation.

Best Regards.

Dear Prof. Pedro L. Contreras E.,

aaaah, it's a book from the famous Berkeley physics course - I forgot the name of the author of this part, prof. Reif.

I have this book in the Polish version (1973). I looked through it half a year ago, and I worked with it slightly in college many years ago. Of course, it's a very good book and a very good course - unfortunately a bit forgotten.

Agreed, the book clearly and logically presents the statistical meaning of the second law of thermodynamics:

3.6. (42) Omega_f >= Omega_i

3.6. (44) P_i=Omega_i/Omega_f

4.1. (15) S*=S+S'=max

4.2. (20) DeltaS+DeltaS'>=0

7.4. (62) DeltaS>=0

7.4. (65) S=k*ln(Omega)

7.5. over (70) Omega*=Omega x Omega'

7.5. (77) DeltaS*=-DeltaG/T'

7.5. (78) G=min (in under conditions tending to thermodynamic equilibrium)

In short, entropy increases because a larger value is more likely than a smaller one. However, if it were completely true, no one would ever win the lottery.

Best regards, GMK

The standard textbook approach to thermodynamics is not axiomatic and is not pretending to be that. If you are looking for that, check out Constantin Caratheodory's 1909 work. Unfortunately, I can only provide you with the original German text, but I suppose there should be an English translation somewhere. His formulation of the 2nd law is "In every arbitrarily close neighborhood of a given initial state there exist states that cannot be approached arbitrarily closely by adiabatic processes".

As you may easily notice, that sounds way less practical than Clausius' formulation and since thermodynamics is mostly taught so that a non-exploding engine is constructed and not in order to provide maximum consistency, teachers stick with that.

Expanding on Caratheodory's works, Lieb and Yngvason focussed further on the 2nd law:

Chapter The Mathematics of the Second Law of Thermodynamics

@ Dear Prof. Contreras,

a new thread emerges from phenomenological thermodynamics. The statistical physics aspect is not absolutely finished yet. "I 'll be back".

@ Dear Dr. Jürgen Weippert,

Thank you for contributing to the discussion. I understand that the criticism of Kelvin's formulation and the criticism of Clausius's first formulation point towards other formulations - e.g. Caratheodory's formulation.

Unfortunately, this formulation isn't much better. Caratheodory's formulation was strongly criticized by Planck (see Radhakrishnamurty) and I will also criticize this formulation of the second law of thermodynamics.

Before I present my main arguments, tell me why people consider Caratheodory's formulation to be mathematical and interpretatively clear? Why don't people see the superficiality of this phrase?

After all, this formulation does not in any way determine the direction of thermodynamic processes. This formulation excludes something, but it is not clear what it excludes, how it excludes and why it excludes.

Best regards, GMK

In the talks I have attended on Caratheodory, nobody claimed this to be "interpretatively clear", not even those who were in favor of his approach. Mathematical stringence and straightforward usability in engineering are not necessarily associated with each other.

Thermodynamics initially was a set of equations to describe steam engines which was later put over all sorts of other processes. As a chemist, I can guarantee that it's no fun to anybody getting started with it in a serious manner because you first have to go through all sorts of non-chemical stuff before chemistry is included. Quite many students never come to terms with this.

We had one professor who was very enthusiastic about Caratheodory's approach because to him the thing that bothered him about TD was its lack of axiomaticity (is that a word?), so he tried to adapt his teaching accordingly. The result were sophisticated students who had a hard time in the lab course when it came to simple applications like a vapor pressure curve.

Therefore, for an introductory lecture I strongly favor teaching the classical formulations and approaches because, as written above, they are very helpful to design non-exploding engines. However, to those who need the axiomaticity in order to come to terms with a discipline, I think bringing up the possibility of such a reformulation can be helpful.

a) Could you please share why the "only one proof scheme, (which) turns out to be wrong". Some references or a detailed explanation would help for the discussion.

b) For a phenomenological approach to 2nd law and entropy, which avoids talking about heat engines first and centers on irreversible processes (which are all important for engineers), see

Article Entropy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics-The Nonequilibr...

This is the detailed version. In undergraduate teaching, I take some shortcuts so that we can go to applications sooner, see

Book Thermodynamics and Energy Conversion

@ Dear Dr. Jürgen Weippert,

I agree that Caratheodory's formulation is not intuitive and that no one specifically claimed otherwise - so much the worse for this formulation.

I also agree that Caratheodory introduced axioms to thermodynamics.

Unfortunately, I cannot agree that Caratheodory's formulation of the second law of thermodynamics is of a strict and specific mathematical nature.

Below are three examples that illustrate the weakness of Caratheodory's formulation. Weakness does not mean untruth, but lack of usefulness, obviousness, failure to express the essence of the second principle.

(i) In the vicinity of each point of the tourist trail in the mountains, there are points that are inaccessible via tourist trails.

(ii) Traveling along Earth's parallels cannot reach Earth's points beyond a given parallel.

(iii) By traveling along the Earth's meridians one can reach any point on the Earth.

(iv) By moving along the parallels east and along the meridians north you can reach anyone further north than your starting point.

We can refine Caratheodory's formulation by making it similar to example (iv). Without this, this statement is only a half-truth (true, but not specific).

@ Dear Prof. Henning Struchtrup,

Ad. a) What I mean is a proof-by-contradiction scheme based on connecting individual engines and refrigerators. I methodically and repeatedly demonstrated the errors of these proofs in the publication:

Article Proof of Equivalence of Carnot Principle to II Law of Thermo...

Only Bhattacharyya had previously noticed problems with this flawed evidence.

Ad. b) I will study your publications with interest. I hadn't noticed them before, but I see that they contain key elements for this discussion.

Best regards, GMK

@ Supporters of Caratheodory's formulation,

won't any of you refer to the critical example comparisons (i-iv) to Caratheodory's principle?

In that case, I strengthen my criticism of this formulation even more.

Examples (i-iv) have even better properties than the considered formulation. Why? Examples (i), (ii) are clear true statements. Example (iii) is positive in the sense of constructive. Example (iv) distinguish the direction of a path or process.

Caratheodory's formulation does not have any of these good properties. However, it has the opposite properties - disadvantages:

(a) It is not clear because it is not known what adiabatic processes are involved. If someone only knows the reversible adiabat, he will not understand anything (for him the formulation will be a tautology). For those familiar with irreversible adiabat, this formulation does not tell us which points are accessible and which are not. Only those who know this adabiata very well know this. So the question is whether the phrase is supposed to be a puzzle or a facilitator?

(b) Caratheodory's formulation is of the negative type, it indicates what something is not, not what it is. The exclusion is not strict - it is not known which points are won and which are not.

(c) The discussed formulation does not distinguish the direction of thermodynamic processes according the second law. It only says very generally that there are prohibited processes.

******

So important questions arise:

I. If we applied Caratheodory's formulation to isothermal processes, would we also have a formulation of the second law of thermodynamics?

II. If we applied Caratheodory's formulation to isobaric processes, would we also have a formulation of the second law of thermodynamics? Even if not, would such a statement be false?

I invite everyone to the discussion.

Best regards, GMK

Dear Prof. Grzegorz M. Koczan

Yes, the book by Prof. Frederick Reif is the fifth volume of the Berkeley Collection of Physics courses and is very instructive.

It looks at the equations and the experiments at the same time and also looks at the link between "microscopic and macroscopic thermodynamics", and it does not use quantum statistics. It makes use of the binomial distribution as an ideal gas for the physical systems it shows as examples.

I use it to teach undergraduate Statistical Physics & in my modest opinion, I like the way he extends the postulates of Statistical Thermodynamics to 6 in the seventh chapter clarifying most of the points.

Best Regards.

Thank you for your answer Prof. Contreras.

I agree that Reif's textbook is very good, clear and does not contain speculative content.

A little jokingly, I can say that the absence of Caratheodory's statement in Reif's textbook is indirect proof that it is not a correct formulation of the second law of thermodynamics.

However, this textbook contains Carnot's statement (Chap. 7.7, equation 108), although it is not called here the formulation of the second law of thermodynamics. Reif's textbook even mentions Kelvin's statement (Chap. 5.1, Fig. 5.3), but it is not written down here.

Professor Contreras, as a user of Reif's textbook, do you confirm my above findings regarding the content of this textbook? What I mean here is the lack of mention of Caratheodory and the reference of Carnot and, less specifically, Kelvin.

I will be grateful for your response.

Best regards, GMK

Dear Prof. Grzegorz M. Koczan

Yes, I have used the textbook for more than 12 years teaching statistical physics for undergraduate majors in physics, and I also used it as a student in the 80s at Moscow State University.

The book is excellent because it has experiments in molecular physics and only a few theoretical statements, so it serves both types of students: theorists and experimentalists in physics.

The textbook also explains a little bit about the history of thermodynamics and has a list of the main new vocabulary in microscopic thermodynamics

Best Regards

Thank you Professor Contreras for informations.

I understand that you are implicitly confirming my findings regarding the presence or absence of Caratheodory, Carnot and Kelvin in Reif's textbook. If so, I would like to ask for explicit confirmation. This is important, especially for readers.

Supporters of Caratheodory's statement should also comment on this matter - otherwise the discussion will be biased. But am I to understand that there are no brave supporters of Caratheodory's statement?

Best regards, GMK

@ Dear Prof. Contreras,

since you know Reif's textbook well, I am still waiting for your explicit confirmation regarding the statements of Caratheodory, Carnot, Kelvin in (or not) this textbook. The textbook is not strictly about thermodynamics, but about statistical physics, nevertheless refers to the second law of thermodynamics.

@ All readers,

since we are talking about American textbooks, it is worth taking a look at Richard Feynman's textbook. Online lecture 44 covers thermodynamics, and section 44-2 and Table 44-1 covers the second law of thermodynamics:

https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_44.html

It can be implicitly stated that Feynman in Table 44-1 gives the Kelvin and Carnot statements. Carnot's name appears many times in Feynman, but the names of Kelvin and Clausius never appear. Moreover, in the first paragraph of section 44-2, Feynman practically attributes the statement known as Kelvin's to Carnot.

Moreover, in the third paragraph of section 44-2, he confirms the content of Kelvin's statement, having previously added the content of Clausius's first statement (that heat naturally flows from higher to lower temperature).

In the same place 44-2 Feynman writes about the equivalence of these statements (in the sense of Kelvin and Clausius I). In the context of Table 44-1, this sounds like stating the equivalence of three statements - adding a statement in the Carnot sense.

Feynman clearly understood the importance of reversible engines (section 44-3). In a sense, Feynman rightly exalted Carnot over Clausius and Kelvin - taking only his name (Carnot) as the author of the statements known as the statements of Clausius I and Kelvin. The physical exaltation of Carnot's name here is consistent with strict mathematical proofs (mentioned earlier):

https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/24/3/392

As for Feynman, it is worth knowing that his maternal grandmother (mother's mother) was Polish and her name was Joanna Helińska/Phillips. You can see this by examining the family tree of Feynman's mother - Lucille Phillips/Feynman:

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Phillips-10838

I apologize for last digression, which is only important for Poles.

DIAGRAMS OF THERMODYNAMICS PROCESSES LIKE FEYNMAN DIAGRAMS

These are processes between two reservoirs (heater and cooler) - such as engine, cooling and other processes.

As you can see in the appendices, such processes can be described with a single-vertex Feynman diagram. The diagrams have arrows and heats and work values Q1, W, Q2, instead of momentum values.

There is also an easy way to mark up diagrams without having to make them. For this you need arrows that can be replaced with words or pluses/minuses:

engine=(Q1,W,Q2)=(down,right,down)=(+,+,+)=+++

refrigerator=(up,left,up)=(-,-,-)=---

Feynman diagrams correspond to the probability amplitude, and thermodynamic diagrams correspond to the entropy change. If the entropy change is negative, the process is impossible, just like the Feynman diagram, which has zero probability amplitude.

The Feynman diagram in the attachment is impossible, just as an engine running on heat from the cooler is impossible:

(up,right,up)=(-,+,-) -impossible process

Sources:

1) thermodynamics two diagrams:

a)

Article Proof of Equivalence of Carnot Principle to II Law of Thermo...

b)

https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/24/3/392

2) Feynman diagram:

https://www.britannica.com/science/Feynman-diagram

Note: Reviewer #3 referred to thermodynamic diagrams as "vectorization of thermodynamic processes":

3)

https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/24/3/392/review_report

CARNOT'S SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS

Does not exist perpetuum mobile type III, i.e. a heat engine with an efficiency greater than the ratio of the maximum temperature difference to the maximum absolute temperature.

CARNOT'S THEOREM

Only the maximum efficiency engine (Carnot's) is reversible. Engine processes with lower efficiency are irreversible, so there are no corresponding refrigeration processes.

PROOF. Let us consider the Carnot engine process (Q1, W, Q2) and the lower efficiency engine process (Q1, W-q, Q2+q), where 0

PROOF of COROLLARY of Carnot's Theorem

We know that there is no perpetuum mobile III type (Q1+q, W+q, Q2), q>0, i.e. a heat engine with an efficiency higher than the Carnot engine (Q1, W, Q2). Corollary's thesis states that there is an inverse process (-Q1-q,-W-q, -Q2) to the perpetuum mobile of the third kind. The theoretical construction of such a process can be shown.

Note that, according to the first law of thermodynamics, a heater can be heated using work w=-q, where q>0. This is a process (-q,-q,0). Indeed, combining this process with a possible engine process gives a possible process:

(-q,-q, 0)+(Q1+p, W, Q2+p)=(Q1+p-q, W-q, Q2+p)

(-q,-q, 0)+(Q1, W-p, Q2+p)=(Q1-q, W-p-q, Q2+p)

where p>=0. The processes are possible because they dissipate more heat to the cooler, producing less work than the Carnot engine.

So we can combine this existing process with the inverse Carnot process:

(-q,-q, 0)+(-Q1, -W, -Q2)=(-Q1-q,-W-q,-Q2)

In this way, we obtained the existing process inverse to the perpetuum mobile type III.

In a different but similar case, we have analogically:

(0,-q, q)+(-Q1, -W, -Q2)=(-Q1,-W-q,-Q2+q)

Therefore, the postulated refrigeration processes exist. What was there to prove.

Hello everyone again,

It looks like I'm answering my own questions. Please don't be afraid - the questions are general and the answers are extensive - there is enough for everyone.

Below I will give an two alternative proof(s) of Carnot's theorem, and then I will ask a questions about Kelvin's statement and the first statement of Clausius. Anyone who wants to understand the second law of thermodynamics or thinks they understand it should read this.

SECOND PROOF OF CARNOT'S THEOREM

Consider a Carnot engine process (Q1, W, Q2) and a lower efficiency engine process (Q1-q, W-q, Q2), where 0

Good morning,

unfortunately, I have to answer these questions myself, because the lack of answers and justification may lead to significant errors.

Let's start with the legend of markings:

C0 - Carnot's statement of the second law,

CT - thesis of Carnot's theorem on a reversible engine,

K - Kelvin's statement (second law?) in the original version (K0) or in the Olstwald version (KO),

C1 - first statement of Clausius (second law?).

CARNOT'S THEOREMS means C0 --> CT

The first PROOF looks like ~CT --> ~K0

The second PROOF looks like ~CT --> ~KO

The third PROOF looks like ~CT --> ~C1

This may suggest false implications: K --> CT(C0) (false), C1 --> CT(C0) (false)

This is about formal, not material, implications.

If the proof were in the form ~CT --> ~C0, there would be no such problems.

Of course, we can provide such more tangible proof:

FOURTH PROOF OF CARNOT'S THEOREM

Let us consider the assembly of two Carnot engines with the inverse of a lower efficiency engine (~CT):

(2Q1, 2W, 2Q2)+(-Q1, -W+q, -Q2-q) = (Q1, W+q, Q2-q)

The resulting process is a type III of perpetuum mobile, so it is ~C0, which completes the proof. #

However, someone may still hold that statements K and C1 are equivalent to statements C0 and CT.

To show that there is no equivalence, it is enough to indicate processes that are inconsistent with C0 and CT, but consistent with K and C1.

Here are two such examples:

(Q1, W+q, Q2-q) and (Q1-q, W, Q2-q)

Both processes violate C0, but they do not violate K (K0) and C1, as long as the reverse Carnot (-Q1, -W, -Q2) process does not exist. However, these statements say nothing about reverse engines.

Have I convinced you that C0 and CT are stronger statements than K (K0 or KO) and C1?

1. I apologize for not answering previously, Prof. Grzegorz M. Koczan

I was involved in some serious health problems and still stay most time in a hospital, but before the end of January I will be back to my library as soon as my physician gives me the green light, and I will try to check the three versions of the book. I always used the first undergraduate one (green from the outside)

2. Prof Feynman does not mention too much in his general textbook, first volume, but he has a book on statistical mechanics:

Statistical Mechanics, A Set Of Lectures By Richard P. Feynman 1st Edition, 1998, Imprint CRC Press

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1201/9780429493034

3. And finally, Prof. Kubo has a classical book:

Thermodynamics, an advanced course with problems and solutions, 1968, Publisher North-Holland

Best Regards.

Dear Prof. Contreras,

Ad. 1. The most important thing is that you are currently healthy at home. So I understand the reason for your absence from the discussion. Without you, the discussion turned into a monologue.

Ad. 2. I wouldn't underestimate Feynman's thermodynamics. It's good that he expressed himself concisely. His approach is closest to mine among all the thermodynamics books I know. I make it clear that I did not imitate Feynman in my article, but now, after its publication, I notice that Feynman reasoned similarly.

Despite this, Feynman did not avoid inaccuracies related to Clausius's first statement and Kelvin's statement (he attributed both statements to Carnot). Feynman's wisdom is that he did not make these inaccurate statements into an overarching master law.

Since there is a textbook for Feynman's Statistical Physics, I would like to inform you that there is such a textbook by Landau (and Lifszyc). I wanted to quote it, but I didn't have time. Landau received the Nobel Prize in 1962 and Feynman in 1965. Moreover, Landau's Nobel Prize was related to thermodynamics and Feyman's was not. The Landau Nobel Prize for the superconductivity of liquid helium was for one person, and the Feynman Nobel Prize for quantum electrodynamics was for three people. It is worth adding that Landau received the award after a car accident, the complications of which led to the scientist's death.

Ad. 3. I've heard a lot of good things about Kubo's textbook. I don't have a paper version of this textbook, but I just managed to get an electronic version. I'm looking through it right now.

Best regards.

Ad. 3. Continued about the Kubo textbook to Thermodynamics.

Unfortunately, Kubo presents an old and incomplete approach:

Ad. a) It is C1 Clausius first statement.

Ad. b) This is a Kelvin statement - K (but not K0).

Ad. c) This is Kelvin's statement in Ostwald's terms: KO.

Ad. d) This is a statement according to Caratheodory.

None of the statements a-d is a complete formulation of the second law of thermodynamics, equivalent to the entropic statement or Carnot's statement.

In the above sense, Kubo's textbook he is not an authority for us here.

The most naive sentence is:

"Because it is an empirical law, there are many ways to state the second law of thermodynamics, and these are of course all equivalent."

Most Esteemed Professor Koczan, Grzegorz M. Koczan

First of all, let me congratulate you for raising this very relevant question.

Mr. Casper Helder told me very good things about you. I'm delighted to meet you here on RG.

As you know, our thermodynamics is a relatively macroscopic science that draws on several human intuitions. All because thermodynamics is the science of heat!

Who says heat, says hot and cold. Who says hot and cold says human intuition!!! And, human intuition often involves endless conversations since they relate to intuitive quantities.

In order to avoid this kind of endless intuitive discussion, several years ago I did the work of converting all the parameters of thermodynamics into terms of the periodic table of elements (i.e., in terms of loads and movement of loads). This is somewhat along the same lines as your question, namely, can you formulate the second law of thermodynamics correctly? I already did this work a very long time ago and it was the theme of my first doctorate in physics (modern thermodynamics of systems of all sizes – in reality, this discipline was developed by none other than me). So yes, I can reformulate the second principle for you in terms understandable to electrical engineers, for example. And, in many other ways. I continue below.

Why use the periodic table of elements to describe the parameters of thermodynamics?

So, the periodic table of elements describes everything in nature and it has been verified so many times that we can have confidence, within the limits of what science allows in terms of confidence. Therefore, the periodic table describes all thermodynamic systems equally well. With this model, we will be able to better find in phenomenological terms an appropriate definition for entropy, irreversibility, etc.

First observations regarding the periodic table of elements:

According to the periodic table and Maxwell's equations, there is no magnetic monopoly. In, what does that mean, Dr. Painchaud? In short, this means that everything we are is described by electrically charged point particles (protons, neutrons and electrons). Even though it is not written on the periodic table, it is the Bohr model of the atomic system. That is to say, the atomic model is made as follows (see figure 1, isotope 16 of oxygen):

• The nucleus is made up of protons and neutrons (this is what determines the isotope).

• The outline of the nucleus is made up of electronic clouds.

Distinction between electrical and heat energy:

Thermodynamics is not really concerned with electrical energy but rather with heat energy. In addition, it is a macroscopic science. So why the description of the atom? The idea is to understand the phenomenon correctly. So here is where chemical energy comes from in the Bohr model:

• Electrical energy comes from the movement of electrons.

• The Calorific Energy must also then come from the movement of electrons but it is initiated by the movement of the nucleus (there is no other choice and the table describes all of nature).

It is because the proton and neutron are 1832 times more massive than the electron that heating and air conditioning are so expensive compared to lighting, for example. In fact, electrons must move particles 1832 times more heavy (protons and neutrons), so it takes a lot of electrons to move a single proton. Lots of electrons means current. A lot of cost involves kWh. And, naturally, kWh means $ on your electricity bill.

We cannot measure the movements of the nucleus within the framework of a macroscopic study like thermodynamics, because we do not have access to atomic scale of matter and even if we had, the clouds of electrons interfere with all measurements. However, we will be able to measure the indirect consequences macroscopically, such as the electric current and the electric voltage between the hot and cold reservoirs. Part of the electric current and voltage will then come from the movement of the nucleus while another part will come from the electronic potential independent of the movement of the nucleus (we can not easily discriminate - it forces simplifying assumptions).

What do parameters like T, S and Q, for example, mean in terms of the periodic table?

Temperature: Volts (would be an indirect measurement but sufficiently precise, in my opinion).

Q or heat in J: to measure the heat exchanged, we could use the current between the hot and cold reservoir, which would be directly proportional to the heat energy in joules. It is possible to make this simplification if the Temperature at point of measurement between hot and cold reservoir is stable, as Temperature is in Volts.

But then, what would entropy and the second law of thermodynamics correspond to or the increase in entropy when there is an exchange of heat at a point A at temperature T?

dS ≥ δQ /T and the entropy must absolutely increase with each heat exchange.

Analysis of the second law of thermodynamics according to the periodic table:

The concept of thermodynamic irreversibility. In order to explain this, we must understand that there is always one reservoir which is at a lower energy level than the other. Usually, the low energy reservoir is the cold reservoir with a lower electrical voltage, or temperature. Thermodynamic irreversibility says that “naturally”, heat will tend to go macroscopically from the reservoir with a high energy level (high electrical voltage) to the reservoir with a low energy level (electrical voltage lower than the hot reservoir). Which implies most of the time that heat will go from hot to cold AND GENERALLY, energy will flow naturally from the reservoir with a high energy level to that with a low energy level.

Personally, I don't see how a scientist who works in this field can be against that!

dS represents the entropy difference which constantly increases after heat exchange. This is understandable, because when there is a heat exchange, the electrical voltage between the hot and cold reservoir will decrease a little. Which in turn indicates a disorder in the alignment of the movements of the core of one reservoir in relation to the other (reduction in the temperature difference between the reservoirs – increase in disorder).

So, yes, the second law of thermodynamics is and will ALWAYS be TRUE in known physics (with no energy provided from outside, otherwise, we have to make adjustments, naturally). There is no doubt in my scientific mind.

I hope I contributed well to your discussion.

Dear Professor A.J.S. Painchaud,

Thank you for your warm words about me in the context of heat in thermodynamics :-). You expressed surprise that a scientist would oppose Clausius I's principle that heat flows downhill. Who did you have in mind? You have stated that the second law of thermodynamics is unconditionally true. Which phrase did you have in mind?

In your comparison, entropy is in Coulombs. However, entropy is probably not as hard and clear a concept as charge.

Best regards, GMK

Dear Professor Grzegorz M. Koczan ,

First, i want to thank you for your response above.

You wrote:

"You expressed surprise that a scientist would oppose Clausius I's principle that heat flows downhill. Who did you have in mind?"

My answer: Three is another question raised by Casper Helder . This question is as follow: "Can the Second Law of Thermodynamics be abandoned?".

On this board, Dr. Bo Miao is publicly saying that the second principle of Thermodynamics is not valid, and not properly stated. I just do not know if it is a virus that took control of his computer or if he is serious.

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Bo-Miao-4

He presented several evidence to support his claims that the Second Principle is not "true". However, I never saw anything serious enough to make me doubt about the Second Principle of Thermodynamics (nor the 1st Principle).

You wrote:

"In your comparison, entropy is in Coulombs. However, entropy is probably not as hard and clear a concept as charge."

My suggestion: I agree with you!

Despite all that, the Periodic Table of Elements defines all that we are, including Nature at large (chemically speaking). Naturally, the periodic table does not include what is in between our fundamental constituents (p, n and é), which is quantum world.

Without this link to chemistry, a vast part of thermodynamics is intuitive. Given that situation, the periodic table is the safest and most tested model of nature that exist, even if not entirely complete (it is an opinion). For this reason, I think it interesting to look at alternative calculations to see if the results are the same and, probably a little bit more.

Dear Professor A.J.S. Painchaud,

from the macroscopic point of view of phenomenological thermodynamics, the second law is indisputable. However, its numerous formulations, although not incorrect, are insufficient.

I have the impression that Bo Miao rightly sensed that there is an abuse of implication somewhere, but he probably didn't point it out very well:

[A] (on the second page)

https://www.researchgate.net/post/The_second_law_of_thermodynamics_contradicts_itself_and_scientists_are_still_foolishly_worshipping_entropy

In other words, if someone claims that Kelvin's statement implies Carnot's statement or that Carnot's lemma (without temperatures) implies the second law - he is wrong.

CARNOT'S LEMMA: An engine is reversible if and only if it has maximum efficiency capability.

CARNOT'S STATEMENT: The Carnot cycle has the maximum efficiency and is: EFFICIENCY=(T1-T2)/T1.

This statement was named after Carnot, although Carnot could not fully guess Carnot's function. For this purpose, the absolute Kelvin temperature scale was needed.

****

From a microscopic point of view (statistical mechanics), the matter of the second law is more complicated - but that is not the point to talk about now.

Best regards, GMK

Dear Professor Grzegorz M. Koczan ,

In reference to your post above, thank you again for this clear and precise answer. You post probably did not need an answer but I decided to bring a few new points-clarifications to try to help other followers.

1) Professor Koczan wrote in the post above:

“from the macroscopic point of view of phenomenological thermodynamics, the second law is indisputable.”

1.1 Comment(s) / suggestion(s) from Dr Alain JS Painchaud:

I am 100% in line with you. The Second Principle of Classical Thermodynamics is always true in “known-physics”. This is why this principle has been guiding scientists for so long.

1.2 Among cases where experiments could suggest that the Second Principle would not be verified could be:

1.2.1 Unknown endothermic or exothermic reactions taking place in an experiment without the knowledge of the scientist (due to macroscopic approach). Then, it would be possible that Entropy would not increase but it would be due to not considering all what happened. After adequate adjustments, the Second Principle would be verified once again, as energy flows from up the hill to down the hill, not the other way (unless one provides energy, naturally!).

1.2.2 New scientific findings that could give the impression of a perpetual machine. However, once all is known and the appropriates adjustments are made, the Second Principle will be verified.

1.2.3 Cases where the Periodic Table of Elements is not describing nature, outside of Earth. However, after adjustments are made, the Second Principle of Classical Thermodynamics will be verified in my opinion.

1.2.4 Cases for which relativistic considerations would have been needed but have not been added. Again, after corrections are made, the Second Principle will be verified.

1.2.5 Etc… (anything else that I have not put).

2) Professor Koczan wrote in the post above:

“However, its numerous formulations, although not incorrect, are insufficient”

2.1 Comment(s) / suggestion(s) from Dr Alain JS Painchaud:

Your view about the Second Principle of Classical Thermodynamics is very similar to mine. So, I tend to agree with your assessment that there are probably too many old statements about the Second Principle of Thermodynamics.

2.2 This said, I suppose that if the Academy sees a need to improve, then they will make change(s). Otherwise, Academia will leave Thermodynamics works as it is now, as it worked well for more than 150 years.

2.3 For interested readers, I put some suggestions of books below, for your review, that would cover:

2.3.1 Equilibrium Thermodynamics

2.3.2 Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics

2.3.3 Statistical Mechanics

If one is interested to search other references, there are numerous works available.

Bibliography

i-Attard, P. (2012). Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics and Statistical Mechanics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

ii-Bonnefoy, O. (2016). Thermodynamique. Saint-Etienne: École Nationale Supérieure des Mines de Saint-Etienne. These are notes from Professor Bonnefoy. He has been inspired by Professor Callen, form US Academy. His notes could be found:

https://www.emse.fr/~bonnefoy/Public/Thermo-EMSE.pdf

iii-Callen, H. B. (1985). Thermodynamics and An Introduction to Thermostatistics. Republic of Singapore: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.

iv-Helrich, C. S. (2009). Modern Thermodynamics with Statistical Mechanics. Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.

v-Koretsky, M. D. (2012). Engineering and Chemical Thermodynamics. Hoboken: Wiley.

vi-Luscombe, J. H. (2018). Thermodynamics. Boca Raton: CRC Press.

vii-Struchtrup, H. (2014). Thermodynamics and Energy Conversion. New York: Springer.

3) Professor Koczan wrote in the post above:

“I have the impression that Bo Miao rightly sensed that there is an abuse of implication somewhere, but he probably didn't point it out very well:”

3.1 Comment(s) / suggestion(s) from Dr Alain JS Painchaud: Like you are suggesting, I also think that Dr. Miao is a true and genuine scientist.

3.2 I think the translation from Chinese to English (and English to Chinese) created confusions, as what he stated looks bizarre for me.

3.3 In short, I also tend to agree with him that the Second Principle of Classical Thermodynamics is hard to understand. In case of any doubt, interested readers could consult the preliminary list of published works (Bibliography) above.

3.4 This said, I do not like Bo’s democratic approach for the definition of the Second Principle. In sciences, there is no democracy, it is like in democracy!!! It is not possible to build laws and principles of physics by doing a “scientific Charriah”! :D

3.5 We have Academia and members of Academia that publish books for others to consult and learn. For me, these books are the rules to follow.

3.6 When in disagreement with the position of an Academy, it is possible to write a scientific article. After, it is reasonable that the Academy will look at it and might consider the changes proposed.

3.6 In this context, I believe that the best way to improve Thermodynamics for most persons is to read books published by Academia or do experiments on his own. For practitioners, it is another story. For other scientists more advanced, there might be needs to discuss other approaches, etc…

4) Confusing terminology used in classical thermodynamics:

Here, I want to show some confusing terminology used today in scientific books and works. It might be useful for a professor.

4.1) - The term "lost energy" is used often, and even if relatively appropriate, it is confusing for students that are learning Thermodynamics, IMHO.

4.1.1) The fact is that we show them with the 1st Principle of Classical Thermodynamics that Energy is always conserved, never lost.

4.1.2) Then, we turn around and we talk about "lost energy".

4.1.3) Naturally, this terminology is relative to an application, but I think it should be reformulated for pedagogical purposes.

4.1.4) It would be normal for a student to be entirely lost (like the lost but conserved energy?) after reading these 2 opposite statements.

4.2) Energy degradation is a term used to show that energy would not be available to be converted to any other work. Naturally, it is more appropriate than “lost energy” but still, I think it is not accurate enough.

4.2.1) Since an Electromagnetic Wave imply a current, then NO ENERGY is lost or degraded! It is like little pieces of energy but nothing is lost. 20 cents represent only 20 cents? Yes but…. If one has 1 billion 20 cents, then it is worth a lot. It is the same for degraded energy, when there is a lot available, then all these little things become big.

4.2.2) In the worst case, the supposedly “lost or degraded Energy” will serve as light in the frequency band where it is located.

I hope my post was useful for this group.

I stop here, as I think I understand well the Second Principle and it is clear for me that it will be always true in known physics.

Best Regards,

Dr. AJSP

Dear Professor A.J.S. Painchaud,

On behalf of myself and the readers, thank you for your long and informative comment.

I cannot comment on all points. I will focus on what will surprise you the most - it will probably be a cognitive shock.

Well, you agreed with me 100% that the second law is absolutely true within the framework of phenomenological macroscopic thermodynamics - ok. However, you extended "this agreement" to all of physics, implicitly including statistical mechanics. You have thus implicitly made an "unauthorized" extension of the scope of applicability of the second principle. The mathematical field of current considerations is the phenomenological thermodynamics of macroscopic states. We shouldn't be talking about statistical mechanics now - we were just dealing with other contexts.

Unfortunately, by consciously or unconsciously formulating a general physical statement, you entered the field of statistical physics. Strictly speaking, you didn't enter, but you brought up statistical physics, because statistical physics contradicts the statement you made.

***

From the point of view of statistical mechanics, the second law has the character of a statistical law (of the most probable event - not even always), and not always a true statement. Boltzmann, Loschmidt, Poincare, Kac and perhaps Gibbs knew this well. But perhaps Marian Smoluchowski, who described it in his work in 1914, knew and understood it best. Surprisingly, Einstein seemed to have no opinion on this subject, even though he was interested in static physics - he even earned a PhD in it, and the diffusion equation (similar to Smoluchowski's equation) explained Brownian motion and introduced humanity to the era of atomism verifiable by experience.

***

Therefore, it is obvious that in statistical mechanics the second law is not an absolute law. There are many examples and arguments for this. However, please do not worry - it is not the end of the world - the violation of the second law is generally at the level of fluctuations and it does not fundamentally affect the phenomenological thermodynamics and the operation of macroscopic silicones.

As for an example, the simplest way is to consider an equilibrium state with maximum entropy that cannot increase any more. Then it can only decrease - but will it decrease? Yes, of course, statistically it may/must decrease slightly - but it does not have to be a big change. Of course, it can also be large, but this is extremely unlikely.

***

If you were very surprised by the above paragraphs, maybe if Professor Contrerras is reading us, he will be able to confirm my words.

Best regards,

Grzegorz M. Koczan

Dear Professor Grzegorz M. Koczan ,

I thank you for taking the time to answer me with another clear answer.

Professor Koczan wrote:

". However, you extended "this agreement" to all of physics,"

Comment from Dr. Alain JS Painchaud: when I use "known physics", it means "applicable known physics", which means macroscopic studies. It does not include all other branches of thermodynamics, as we are exchanging here about classical thermodynamics.

I am sorry for the misunderstanding. I did not express myself clearly enough.

-------------------- additional notes -------------

First, I want to reassure you, I do not mix statistical mechanics with Classical Thermodynamics in my last post. All I say is that if a student or young scientist wants to better understand thermodynamics, one can simply look at a few books that I mentioned above.

-Classical Thermo and Statistical Mechanics are 2 different fields in my view.

Classical Thermo offers a macroscopic study while statistical mechanics is relatively microscopic study. Yes, it is not the same as what I developed based on the periodic table of elements (so, 3 different subjects).

My last post was mainly about Classical Thermodynamics. I only gave a few references to statistical mechanics for interested readers.

It is not possible for me to confuse Statistical Mechanics and Classical thermodynamics:

i) Statistical Mechanics studies the Systems from inside, at littler scale of matter. Indeed, i question the usefulness of this.

ii) Classical Thermodynamics, which was the main subject in my last post, studies from a macroscopic point of view (from the outside of the system). I think that this is the only generally valid study possible. one has to know how to use it.

I am in agreement with you that Classical Thermodynamics is always true in known physics for within its scope : which means a relatively macroscopic study with typically N constituents (N being number of Avogadro --- 6 X 10^23)

Dear Professor A.J.S. Painchaud,

To clarify, I did not mean to confuse thermodynamics with statistical physics. Let's imagine that someone says that Mount Blanck is the highest mountain in the world because he means Western Europe. In this way, willingly or unwillingly, he brings up the Himalayas and the discussion about Elbrus. He says he didn't say it - it even worse because he disregarded other regions of the world.

In the same way, you (Professor Painchaud) try to favor phenomenological thermodynamics over statistical mechanics. I don't agree here. You cannot pretend that something is a fundamental law if it is not. It cannot be said that phenomenological thermodynamics of macroscopic states is "known physics" and that static mechanics is not experimental physics. You will say that you did not use these words, but it resulted from your statements.

However, I understand it - you have the right to organize your worldview when someone told you that the dogma you believe in is only as certain as the fact that you will not win a million euros in the lottery tomorrow. But maybe you can take comfort in knowing that there are people who win the lottery, even though it is almost impossible.

But why are we/you already discussing whether the second principle is absolutely true when you haven't stated this principle? What do you think the second law of thermodynamics is? How strictly do you formulate the second law and all the details needed for it?

PS. Your Zoom meeting probably didn't take place. I just dropped by for a moment during a break between classes.

Best regards,

Grzegorz M. Koczan

Dear Professor Grzegorz M. Koczan ,

I thank you for taking time to respond to me with a clear answer. It shows that you are a professor, since you are able to organize your ideas in such a manner so that it is understandable by others. Thank you!

1) Professor Koczan wrote:

" In the same way, you (Professor Painchaud) try to favor phenomenological thermodynamics over statistical mechanics."

1.1 Comment(s) from Dr. Alain JS Painchaud: Here, I agree with your statement that I think that macroscopic Thermodynamics is the only way to study "unknown thermodynamics systems".

1.2 In other words, I do not think it is possible to study the forest from inside the forest, like statistical mechanics is doing (astrology type of business combined with simplifying assumptions). But, I did not know I talked precisely about this subject. You understood from indirect words.

1.3 Statistical mechanics has been made to study known systems from inside. Or, if you prefer, we assume that all the micro and micro states are the same, even in unknown thermodynamics systems. This simplifying assumptions might not always be true.

1.4 Statistical mechanics is equivalent to try to describe the forest from inside the forest. Many have tried to do this and got lost in the forest.

2) Professor Koczan wrote:

"It cannot be said that phenomenological thermodynamics of macroscopic states is "known physics" and that static mechanics is not experimental physics. You will say that you did not use these words, but it resulted from your statements."

2.1 Comment(s) from Dr. Alain JS Painchaud: You removed the words from my mouth before I said it. Professor Koczan is correct, I never used these words.

2.2 Also, the words used by Professor Koczan are not what I meant and not what I would have used.

2.3 Finally, this does not resulted from my statements, but rather from the understanding of Professor Koczan after reading my statements.

2.4 When I say that the Second Principle of Classical Thermodynamics is always true in "known physics", it does not mean that the other sciences are not true. It means that the results of the Second Principle of Classical Thermodynamics are going to be what is expected after any experiments made with "known-physics".

2.5 I would say that "known-physics" includes what is described by the periodic table of elements. If one finds something that can not be described by the Periodic table, then...probably in the case of a macroscopic study on an unknown thermodynamic system composed of this "new thing", the results of the second principle might not be in line with what was expected (entropy would not increase, after we do all adaptations, since we did not include the unknowns since we are not in known-physics).

2.6 To conclude, the term "known physics" make rather reference to what is expected in physics as a result from an experiment with the subject that we were talking. Here, we were talking about Classical Thermodynamics. Here, the Entropy of any system increases after an exchange of heat between hot and cold reservoir.

Dear Professor A.J.S. Painchaud,

maybe you exaggerated by comparing statistical mechanics to astrology and stating that it has no experimental or other successes. I suggest that you do not comment categorically on topics that you do not have in-depth knowledge about. This leads to inevitable conflict - I know this process very well, so let's not go down this path. Sorry, I didn't mean to be too harsh, but continuing this thread will make me have to be more blunt.

***

Let us focus on phenomenological thermodynamics and the formulation of the second law. You wrote:

“Here, the Entropy of any system increases after an exchange of heat between hot and cold reservoir.” A.J.S. Painchaud

If the exchange is symmetrical (transfer of the same heat), then yes, but if some of the heat does not reach the cooler, this does not have to be true. During the operation of a Carnot engine, heat partially flows from a higher to a lower temperature, but this process is reversible and entropy does not increase. This just shows how subtle the second principle is and how difficult it is to formulate precisely. In particular, we can see how imprecise Clausius's first formulation is.

So how do you want to formulate the second law?

Best regards,

Grzegorz M. Koczan

Esteemed Professor Koczan Grzegorz M. Koczan ,

Thank you again for your clear response and patience in dealing with difference of opinion with me.

1) Professor Koczan wrote:

"Let us focus on phenomenological thermodynamics and the formulation of the second law.

If the exchange is symmetrical (transfer of the same heat), then yes, but if some of the heat does not reach the cooler, this does not have to be true. During the operation of a Carnot engine, heat partially flows from a higher to a lower temperature, but this process is reversible and entropy does not increase. This just shows how subtle the second principle is and how difficult it is to formulate precisely. In particular, we can see how imprecise Clausius's first formulation is."

1.1 Comment(s) from Dr. Alain JS Painchaud: Your example is an example that is outside of the scope of Classical Thermodynamics. Classical Thermodynamics deals with macroscopic considerations, so it deals with averages of an overall system consisting typically of N constituents (where N is the number of Avogadro -- 6 X 10 ^23).

1.2 Then, you have to ask yourself, am I dealing with equilibrium or non-equilibrium thermodynamics.

1.3 If you deal outside of the equilibrium state and talk about littler scale of matters, then I think it is better to consider other tools than Classical Thermodynamics Macroscopic Studies. This, to illustrates that otherwise, the expected results might not happen.

1.4 Briefly, one has to separate which discipline he needs for its studies:

- Equilibrium

- Non-Equilibrium

- Known-systems with macroscopic or microscopic considerations

- Unknow systems with macroscopic or microscopic considerations.

1.5 Then, I think it is a matter of choosing between the Macroscopic Approach of Classical Thermodynamics versus the relatively microscopic approach of Statistical mechanics.

2) Professor Koczan wrote:

"So how do you want to formulate the second law?"

2.1 Comment(s) from Dr. Alain JS Painchaud: So, to answer your question, the way you asked your question does not allow me to answer it clearly, as the example you are citing covers more than one discipline.

2.2 IN other words, the formulation of the Second Principle of Thermodynamics has to be stated differently in function of the application and the relative scale of matter with respect to the overall system studied.

2.3 When Clausius and friends stated the Second Principle of Thermodynamics, they did not know that we would have all the cases that we have today.

2.4 On top of these considerations, one might want to add simple relativistic considerations or, even more complicated cases dealing with High energy physics (particle physics, that is indeed our beloved Thermodynamics disguised in another discipline).

Esteemed Professor Koczan, I think you are able to find how to state a revision of the Second Principle of Thermodynamics without my contribution, like you mentioned above.

I will be quiet, unless you notify me with specific request(s).

Dear Professor A.J.S. Paindchaud,

thank you for almost refraining from commenting subjectively on statistical mechanics.

Ad. 1.1. "Outside scope" - some misunderstanding - to put it mildly. Carnot engine "outside scope" - free jokes.

Ad. 1.2, 1.3. The question about the thermodynamic equilibrium between T1>T2 reservoirs is meaningless.

Ad. 2. If you cannot or are afraid to provide any working definition of the second law of thermodynamics, it will be difficult to maintain the substantive nature of the scientific discussion. We can talk about anything and everything, but I would rather talk about the second principle, not about imaginary conditions. If you need any conditions, define them along with second law (both).

Best regards,

Grzegorz M. Koczan

Dear Professor Grzegorz M. Koczan ,

In reference to your last post, I wanted to thank you again for answering my previous post and explaining your views.

1) After you submitted me a few posts, I consider that the conversation is not going the direction I thought it would go. Indeed, this board is to determine what would be our statement of an eventual new second principle of thermodynamics.

2) Instead of continuing with the previous discussion, I will explain you:

2 A) the work that I did that served me to create what I called : Modern Thermodynamics of Systems of Various Scales.

2 B) My proposed revised statement for the Second Principle of Thermodynamics or, if you prefer, the answer to your question on this board.

A) Modern Thermodynamics of Systems of Various Scales:

3) First, this modern thermodynamics is entirely based on the periodic table of elements, originally developed by Our Beloved Russian Academy of Sciences, by D Mendeleev.

4) Why did I develop this modern Thermodynamics? Because the classical thermodynamics is too much based on human intuitions, in my opinion. So, it generates discussions with a lot of "intense content" when indeed we are talking about simple subjects (look at the posts above).

5) Per the periodic table of elements, we are all made of protons, neutrons and electrons. All this to say that we are all made of "point charged particles".

6) This means that all the measuring equipment that we use are indeed only able to measure : charges (volts) and movement of charges (amps). Why? Because all these measuring instruments are indeed defined by the periodic table of elements.

7) Naturally, assuming that we can only measures charges (V) and movement of charges (A), then it is possible to build an equivalent electrical systems for every thermodynamics systems that we have to study.

8) At this point, I think you should understand that the modern thermodynamics that I developed has no space for emotional discussions.

8.1) This is the case because all is reduced to an electrical circuit, where it is easy to improve or change any components that is not working properly.

9) This modern thermodynamics that I developed has not been approved yet by Academia. Also, I am not trying to promote it here, I am just informing you that I am advanced enough to know how to state Second Principle(s) of Thermodynamics without any ambiguity.

10) Indeed, I never tried to publish any article about the "Modern Thermodynamics" that I developed yet. It is probably a good reason why "this modern thermodynamics" has never been approved.

11) Maybe someone else developed that before, but it did not work well and I was not aware? It is possible. In all cases, the modern thermodynamics that I developed is working well.

B) What would be my statement for an eventual revised 2nd Principle of Thermodynamics?

Before I start this tedious task, I need to tell you that am overloaded with many different works to accomplish. So, I just put a macroscopic picture.

12) First, I am using the terminology "principle of thermodynamics", while you are using "law of thermodynamics". It is not only a little difference, in my opinion.

13) Essentially, I use the term Principle because thermodynamics is always true in "known physics", or if you prefer, thermodynamics will always be true as long as the periodic table of elements will be true. Outside of that, we can not know (cases outside of Earth, etc...).

14) To help to make the distinction between a law of physics and a principle of physics: A law of physics will always be true, no matter what. In my opinion, Classical Thermodynamics is composed by principle of physics, not laws of physics.

15) The distinction between these 2 "knowledges of physics" is explained in a science called "Epistemology", and more precisely, by the work of H Poincaré, or the French Academy, more generally.

16) As you know, philosophy supervises all empirical sciences of natures, why PhD is indeed Doctor of Philosophy. Yes, PhDs have different specialty but at the root, PhD is Doctor of Philosophy.

Law of Physics or Principle of Physics?

17) As you may not know, Epistemology is part of Philosophy and it deals, for example, with the classifications of knowledges of empirical sciences of nature, like thermodynamics. This is this precise specialty that deals with the distinction between:

17.1 Fact of physics (measurement, for example)

17.2 Principle of Physics.

17.3 Laws of Physics.

17.4 Model of Physics (like atomic model, per say).

17.5 Theory of Physics (Einstein theories, per say)

18) So, my first point would be to determine that Thermodynamics is indeed composed of Principles of Physics, not laws of Physics. Yes, I know, most of the books are using the terminology "Laws of Thermodynamics" but some are still using "Principles of Thermodynamics".

A potential new statement for the Second Principle of Thermodynamics

------- methodology to determine the statement -----------

19) First, for me, the actual statement of the Second Principle is good enough but I admit that many scientists have difficulties to grab the meaning of the Second Principle. In short, the Academia did a good job with the actual statement in my opinion.

20) Despite the fact that we have a clear Thermodynamics well explained by Academia, I admit that it might be a good idea to renew Thermodynamics into a revised science with modern parameters.

20.1) For example, in Classical Equilibrium Thermodynamics, we have that:

dS ≥ δQ/T

at point of exchange of heat A, between hot and cold reservoir.

This tells us that for any physical system, naturally (without external energy inputs), Entropy can only increase or, in the worst case, stay stable. In other words, if one finds a system where Entropy does not follow this rule, he has probably made a mistake while measuring his phenomena or etc...

21) For a revised new statement I would be tempted to state it generally, for all known cases in physics (whether the system is composed of human fabricated materials or not). More or less, like dS is stated actually and, with the aim of advising scientist that dS always increase after an exchange of heat in real natural systems, for most applications.

22) I would not immediately include relativistic considerations, like the ones dealt in particle physics, for example. Except, if I am entitled to restate the new principle of thermodynamics with a revised terminology defined with my new "Modern Thermodynamics of Systems of Various Scales", that I developed since 2002 (by my own, not with any Academy).

23) So, if I had to state a revised Second Principle, without adding relativistic considerations or any "unknown physics topic(s)", advise scientist that dS always increases, then I would probably leave the Second Principle exactly like it is stated today, since it is well done and well explained in all the books that I have read.

I hope my contributions helped your discussion.

Regards,

Dr. Alain JS P.

Dear Professor A.J.S. Paindchaud,

If you write 20 points in order to write in the 21st point that you prefer the second rule as it is - then you are an outstanding waterman and you have nothing important to say. This is how students respond when they pretend to know something. Sorry, but that's what it looks like.

The principle vs. law discussion is not that important either, because it depends on the dictionary - English is not my native language. Therefore, one of these terms may or may not be more appropriate, so it is not worth wasting time on humanities arguments.

Best regards,

Grzegorz M. Koczan

Dear Professor Grzegorz M. Koczan ,

In reference to your post above, I thank you for taking time to tell me that you think my reasoning should have gone directly to bullet 21.

1) Professor Koczan wrote:

"If you write 20 points in order to write in the 21st point that you prefer the second rule as it is - then you are an outstanding waterman".

1.1) Comments from Dr. Alain JS Painchaud: I tried to explain you that there are so many different statements of the Second Principle of Thermodynamics. Consequently, no one can say that the Statement of the Second Principle is not clear, since there are so many statements (which one are we talking about exactly?).

1.2) The statement of the second principle of thermodynamics tells us that entropy shall always increase. This is what the Second Principle is about, a way to determine if a system is possible or not. In that sense, I do not think there is any need to re - state the second principle, as it is doing a good job as it is now.

1.3) To compensate for this reality, I proposed an alternate Thermodynamics that I developed and called : Modern Thermodynamics of Systems of Various Scales". This method allows to define Thermodynamics with "non-intuitive" parameters. It also allows to optimize all the materials and performances of engines. All this to say that it might represent a good option, as I can report that it works very well.

1.4) It is my opinion that the actual climate studies are not made appropriately. I mean, it is not possible to explain the forest from inside the forest. This is precisely what is done for Earth's climate now. Earth's climate sizes is bigger than Earth itself but scientists are taking measurements at a scale that seems not appropriate. This could be explained with simplifying assumptions but I doubt. Naturally, I do not work with them, so I could I know? The concept of Production of Entropy is an evidence of that reality (studies at the wrong scale of matter).

2) Professor Koczan wrote:

"The principle vs. law discussion is not that important either, because it depends on the dictionary - English is not my native language. Therefore, one of these terms may or may not be more appropriate, so it is not worth wasting time on humanities arguments."

2.1) Comments from Dr. Alain JS Painchaud: English is not my native language either. However, in sciences, little distinctions are important, in my opinion, especially, when you accomplish important works.

2.2) For example, it is not possible to prove a law of physics with a principle of physics. This is easily understood when explained but if not explained, it might lead to evident logical mistakes, in conversation(s) or article(s), etc...

2.3) For example, you can not "logically" use the argument that a law of physics is true because one tested it with the principles of thermodynamics. This, because a law of physics is always true, while a principle is always true in known physics. These little distinctions are important.

2.4) In a similar manner, one can not say that the expansion of the universe can be used to prove the Second Principle of Thermodynamics, as it is not directly pertinent and this knowledge never made it to the rank of a Principle of Physics. Consequently, without the proper ranking and without pertinence, there is no argument possible.

2.5) In my opinion, neglecting classification of knowledges is a mistake often made by new managers, since Epistemology governs Physics in the organigram. It would be equivalent to neglecting a boss.

2.6) It is Henri Poincaré that made Thermodynamics with Principles in lieu of Laws of Physics, to avoid incessant revisions. Professor Olivier Bonnefoy stated him in his Thermodynamics' notes:

Original text is in French and has been translated in English with Google:

"When a law has received sufficient confirmation from experience, we can adopt two attitudes, we leave this law in the fray; it will then be subjected to an incessant revision which will undoubtedly end up demonstrating that it is only approximate. Or it can be made a principle, adopting conventions such that the proposition is certainly true.

Henri POINCARE (1854-1912, French mathematician, physicist and philosopher)"

Regards,

Dr. Alain JS P.

I will stop this conversation here, as I think we went thru your subject already.

Attentive readers,

they probably noticed that there are several formulations of the second law - especially in phenomenological thermodynamics. Therefore, in the discussion, I asked for the wording that a given person considered to be the most appropriate. No one complied with my request, although there was a reference to Clausius's first principle and Carnot's principle. However, the alleged conclusion included a second statement by Clausius (about entropy), which is said to be undeniable.

It is very possible that the law of non-decreasing entropy is the best statement we currently have. However, it is important to know that this formulation is not and cannot be completely mathematically exact for two fundamental reasons.

First of all, we do not have one clear definition of entropy - neither in phenomenological thermodynamics nor in statistical physics.

Secondly, in thermodynamic equilibrium, entropy cannot increase anymore, but it can decrease - in fact, it must decrease. Entropy decreases are proven by the fluctuation theorem. Moreover, fluctuations are subject to experimental observations. Therefore, if someone claims that the law of increasing entropy is now an absolute law/principle/statement/theorem, it means that they do not know the facts of this field of science.

I give explicit examples of these facts:

i. fluctuation theorem,

ii. Poincaré's theorem about the return of a dynamic system to its initial state,

iii. Loschmidt's paradox of reversibility,

iv. in a state of thermodynamic equilibrium, the second law of thermodynamics generally does not apply,

v. the impossibility of Boltzmann's derivation of the second law without the artificial assumption of deterministic chaos,

vi. impossibility of deriving the second law inequality without the assumption that the system is not in thermodynamic equilibrium.

However, it would also be wrong to say that the second law of thermodynamics is completely untrue. Nevertheless, it requires repair - mathematical refinement - regardless of whether someone likes it or not.

LAW OF PHYSICS VS PRINCIPLE OF PHYSICS

Such a distinction cannot be strict and universally recognized. Few of them could be more true or more right. However, one might consider such a distinction.

It seems that a law of physics is some formula, most often mathematical, a rule or a fact, which cannot be interpreted as a purely logical conclusion.Of course, the laws of physics are logical and may have the form of logical implications, but they are not statements resulting from logic itself. An example of the laws of physics are Newton's laws of motion. (However, they are sometimes called principles of dynamics.)

The principles of physics should introduce a certain way of thinking - a certain specific logic of thinking and logic of implications. The principles of physics also cannot be statements of pure logic, but it seems that they should have the structure of logical inference. An example is the principle of conservation of momentum, the principle of conservation of energy.

ARE THE PRINCIPLES/LAWS OF THERMODYNAMICS LAWS OR PRINCIPLES?

The first law of thermodynamics seems more like a principle because it concerns the principle of conservation of energy - but it is still called a law.

The second law of thermodynamics in the entropy formulation also appears to be a principle, not a law. Kelvin's statement and Clausius's first statement also seem to be principles.

However, Carnot's formula looks more like a law of physics. Alternatively, Carnot's theorem on a reversible engine may already look like a principle - because it presents implications, not just a formula.

Of course, the equations of gas transformations and the Clapeyron equation are the laws of physics, and "probably not" the principles of physics.

CAN LAW OR PRINCIPLE NOT APPLY?

Yes, a law of physics may no longer cover a given phenomenon due to scope or assumptions. Similarly, a principle of physics may not be appropriate to the situation. It's hard to talk about it without examples.

For example, Ohm's law does not apply at high temperatures. The ordinary law of universal gravity does not apply near a black hole.

However, the principle of conservation of energy does not seem to apply (in some sense) in non-inertial frames.

It is difficult to find a better example of the principle not being fulfilled - as for the second principle of thermodynamics. Well, with fluctuations the second principle of thermodynamics is not fulfilled. Similarly, when moving back from the equilibrium position, this principle is not met. It can be said that the principle applies on a large scale, and only on a small scale there are some exceptions.

Esteemed Professor Grzegorz M. Koczan ,

I assume you were responding to me (and others readers interested by this topic) about my post on Epistemology for determining :

- the ranking among scientific knowledges of an empiric science of nature.

Why is it important to rank the knowledges?

So, I thank you for taking time to respond to me and explaining me why are you not sure if this applies or not. I wanted to make this little post to try to explain you why Epistemology is very important when you want to state a knowledge of physics and when one wants to classify the knowledges found with its laboratory, or its group, etc...

A) Dr.Alain JS Painchaud adds:

1) Why did I bring Epistemology and Philosophy in this conversation?

2) My own answer: Because you were talking about re stating the Second Principle of Thermodynamics. Epistemology is closely related to this topic.

3) Now, stating a knowledge of an empirical science of nature might seem easy but it is not (I know you know, but for other readers). There are a lot of considerations to take into account, in my opinion.

4) Lets take the particular case of Albert Einstein, that is considered to be a very clever scientist.

5) More precisely, the postulates that he used to make Special Relativity. In a lot of scientific works that I saw, they state the first postulate similar to this:

i) - All laws of physics apply relatively the same way in all inertial frames (Principle of relativity)

There is a little problem with the first postulate of special relativity, because it tells the user how to apply laws of physics with a principle of physics! Why it consists of a problem? Because laws of physics are always true & principle are true only in known physics. This consists of a statement problem (little, but it is a logical problem, in my opinion). Now, lets look at how Esteemed Professor A.P. French of MIT states the postulates of Special Relativity (the problem will be the same, since he will also subordinate laws of physics to the principle of relativity, which suggest a logical problem):

6) I will state Esteemed Professor A.P. French from M.I.T. in his book Special Relativity, at page 72:

i)- Postulate #1: All inertial frames are equivalent with respect to all the laws of physics. *1 (principle of relativity).

ii)- Postulate #2: The speed of light in empty space always has the same value c. *2

Bibliography:

1- French, A. (1968). Special Relativity. Boca Raton: CRC Press.

2- French, A. (1968). Special Relativity. Boca Raton: CRC Press.

7) Do you see anything special, in terms of Epistemology? I mean, the way that Special Relativity has been postulated?

8) My suggested answer: In my opinion, the first postulate is not useful and might confuse some readers to the effect that laws of physics are not always true, or that they do not apply the same way. why? Because according to the first postulate of Special Relativity, it appears that laws of physics are subordinated to the principle of relativity (same problem as above). The truth is that laws of physics are ALWAYS TRUE. There is nothing to add.

8.1) My point is that even Special Relativity might have a little defects in the statement of its 2 postulates, even if Einstein was very clever (neglected epistemology), as it is not possible to state the domain of application of a law of physics with a principle of physics. At least, I do not see how it is logically possible to do this manipulation of knowledges. Conclusion: even the smartest physicists need to be aligned with philosophy and all its branches (including epistemology).

B) Professor Koczan wrote:

"Such a distinction cannot be strict and universally recognized. Few of them could be more true or more right. However, one might consider such a distinction."

9) Comments from Dr. Alain JS Painchaud: I agree that it is not obligatory and that Epistemology is not universally recognized, even if it is a branch of philosophy that oversees all empirical sciences of nature. However, it is suggested by Epistemology, that is part of Philosophy. As Philosophy supervises all PhD, no matter their specialty, then it is probably useful and recommended to use classification of knowledges for an empirical science of nature.

10) Said in another manner, one of the important reasons for taking time to classify knowledges of an empirical science of nature is to be able to distinguish which knowledge is stronger than the other, as there will be cases where a scientist might have to choose what knowledge has more chances to be true than the other.

11) Let me cite an example where a scientist would say that:

Example: a Law of Physics is not true because it is not in agreement with a Theory of Physics.

Before saying that this scientist is wrong or correct, we have to determine which knowledge is stronger than the other one. To do this, I will use the following recipe:

11.1) If we go back to my previous post, I said that:

Law of Physics or Principle of Physics?

17) As you may not know, Epistemology is part of Philosophy and it deals, for example, with the classifications of knowledges of empirical sciences of nature, like thermodynamics. This is this precise specialty that deals with the distinction between:

17.1 Fact of physics (measurement, for example)

17.2 Principle of Physics.

17.3 Laws of Physics.

17.4 Model of Physics (like atomic model, per say, all & SR&ED).

17.5 Theory of Physics (Einstein theories, per say mostly SR).

Which knowledge is stronger than the other one?

11.2 )

11.2.1 A measurement is a measurement and is only true in a given context.

11.2.2 A principle of Physics is always true, in known physics. This means that a principle is hard (impossible) to prove but has never been overthrown as long as it is used within the limit of its acceptability. Ex: Principles of thermodynamics.

11.2.3 Laws of Physics are always true.

11.2.4 Model is a combination of the 3 first knowledges and they are as strong as the weakest knowledge used to build it. Ex: Atomic model.

11.2.5 Theory is a combination of the 3 first knowledges and they are as strong as the weakest knowledge used to build it. Ex: Einstein theories when originally released and used for SR.

Answer to my own example above with the scientist that says that a law of physics is not valid because it is against a theory of physics:

12) In this case, a Theory of Physics is usually a collection of knowledges made of knowledges that have lower ranking than a law of physics. Theory of physics are usually checked in the context of SR for decades by scientists. This said, a law of physics is always true, so it is not possible that a theory of physics (not yet proven, used for SR would prove that a law of physics is not true. Therefore, for this example, the scientist could not use the logic that he presented, unless naturally, this special Theory was built to prove that all laws of physics are wrong or a case similar.

13) This example illustrates one of the purposes to classify knowledges of an empirical science of nature. It is very useful, in my opinion. However, as of today, it is not done by most scientists (I think it is a mistake to neglect Epistemology). I think it clarifies my previous post on the subject.

14) This example also explains why Philosophy supersedes all empirical sciences of nature. In my example, I used Epistemology, which is interested by the classification of knowledges.

15) Best Regards! :D

Dr. Alain JS Painchaud

Dear Alain J.S. P.

Provide at least working definitions of "Law" and "Principle" or differences between these concepts. Otherwise the discussion will be pointless.

If both concepts must be true, then there is no point in distinguishing between them.

In my opinion, we cannot assume absolute truth, neither principle nor law - but only truth in the system, in the model. Only logical model theory makes sense in the context of truth.

Dear Grzegorz M. Koczan ,

You asked for definitions of knowledges for "classification purposes" in your last post.

Suggested answer: see 11.2.1 to 11.2.5 of my last post for an example of definitions of knowledges for Classification purposes. Again, it is an example!

The main idea is to classify knowledges with a clear system (definitions, like you asked and were provided). This system comes from the French Academy at the time of H Poincaré. It is not coming from me. If not possible to accept the definition of laws of physics (always true), then you may do an alternate system for you with different definitions.

One of my point about classifying knowledges is this situation: Esteemed Professor Einstein first postulate of Special Relativity uses a principle of physics (principle of relativity) to describe the validity of all laws of physics with respect to inertial frames. Even without definition, this choice for the First Postulate is hard to understand, unless validities of laws of physics are really determined by a principle of physics, which ought to have a lower validity than the law of physics it tries to validate. In my view, it is possible that there is a mistake, or, naturally, that I did not understand correctly one or a few things.

So, probably that Professor Einstein did not follow Epistemology, same as what you are suggesting. But, I think that philosophy is very important when it comes to state a knowledge of physics. It is clear that the statement of a knowledge is not an easy job (I remind you that it is the purpose of your question on this board). It probably involves a few different disciplines, like math & physics and maybe more (philosophy?).

I wish you to find what you are looking for with the question you started here. I provided a bit of information for the topics I think I could help.

Dear Alain,

I know that it is difficult to give explicit characteristics or definitions of "Law" and "Principle". The easiest way is to write that such a definition has already been provided (in previous posts), or that someone else did (e.g. Poincare), or even that someone else did not provide it (e.g. Einstein). I know that it is easier to write about philosophy, epistemology and the classification of knowledge. I'm not saying it's unrelated, but that's not the issue at hand.

Alain, can you just write?:

"THE LAW OF PHYSICS IS....."

"PRINCIPLE OF PHYSICS IS ..."

If you can, please write, if not, please write that you cannot provide these terms.

Perhaps you can't provide these definitions because the distinction doesn't make sense.

If you cannot define the difference, then you should not deny using the words "Law" and "Principle" as synonyms.

Regards, GMK

Dear Professor Grzegorz M. Koczan ,

First, I want to thank you for taking your time to read my post and compose an answer to it.

A) Professor Koczan wrote:

"Alain, can you just write?:"

1) Answer from Dr Alain JS Painchaud: Yes, naturally, I can!

2) At point 11.2.1 to 11.2.5 of my previous posts, we can see the following (I added a bit more info, but essentially, it is the same thing):

"11.2 )Which knowledge is stronger than the other one?

11.2.1 A fact or a measurement is only true in a given context.

11.2.2 A principle of Physics is always true, in known physics. This means that a principle is hard (impossible) to prove but has never been overthrown as long as it is used within the limit of its acceptability. Ex: Principles of thermodynamics.

11.2.3 Laws of Physics are always true (Ohms Law, per say).

11.2.4 Model is a combination of the 3 first knowledges and they are as strong as the weakest knowledge used to build it. Ex: Atomic model. It can be used in Scientific Research (SR), Experimental Development (ED) or in engineering applications.

11.2.5 Theory is a combination of the 3 first knowledges and they are as strong as the weakest knowledge used to build it. Ex: Einstein theories when originally released and used for SR, as it was not yet proven when released (why it was called Theory)."

2) Now, I am not the one who created this system of classification of knowledges (it comes from French Academy, that is very well organized usually). However, this is how I manage the knowledges inside my little Academy.

3) It helps to to avoid doing possible mistakes like the first postulate of Einstein Special Relativity, meaning to define the validity of a law of physics with a principle of physics, which is less valid than the law of physics it tries to define the validity.

Deaar Alain,

You are trying to define the concepts of "Principle" and "Law" based on the criterion of truthfulness. It can be said that you have provided the definition of 11.2.2 "Principle". You used the word "always" incorrectly in the sense of most often - in ordinary situations. A mathematician would not confuse allways with most often.

However, proposal 11.2.3 for "Law" is no longer a definition at all. You're using "allways true" again - this time I think you mean "allways" as allways. The example of Ohm's law is bad because Ohm's law does not apply, for example, to a light bulb.

It looks like you meant not specific "physical laws", but general physics laws. But that wasn't the point of distinguishing terminology.

In concrete terms, it seems to be exactly the opposite of what you wrote. Well, specific "physical law" has a more limited context of truthfulness. However, "Principle" is rather more general in terms of truth, but we cannot require the truth of "allways".

Principle is a "mechanism":

https://www.quora.com/Whats-the-difference-between-a-law-and-a-principle

Dear Professor Koczan,

In reference to your post above, I wanted to thank you for your answer.

Professor Koczan wrote:

"Principle is a "mechanism":

https://www.quora.com/Whats-the-difference-between-a-law-and-a-principle"

Comment from Dr Alain JS Painchaud: I was talking about a principle of physics, not a principle "at large" nor one of a sewing machines. I think the distinction is evident? Do you agree?

If you are looking for references about this classification method, it comes from PMC University, as far as I remember. I might have good references for you, if you are interested.

I thank you again for your time. I hope I contributed positively to your group.

Dr. Alain JS Painchaud

Dear Alain,

not entirely agreed. First of all, no one in our topic talks about principles other than those of physics. Secondly, there are two meanings of principles of physics - abstract principles (or laws) of physics that we believe exist and would like to explore, and concrete stated and known principles of physics.

I think you've confused these two types of principles (or laws) a bit.

The association of the "mechanism" with a sewing machine was also inappropriate (maybe you mean something else - sorry). The definition of a principle as a mechanism is better than my and your "allways true" definition.

Can you list the three laws of physics and the three principles of physics - without repeating the examples that have already been given?

Dear Professor Grzegorz M. Koczan ,

Thank you again for clarifying your previous answer.

I think you misunderstood all. Let me try to clarify in this last post:

A) Professor Koczan wrote:

"I think you've confused these two types of principles (or laws) a bit."

1) Comment from Dr Alain JS Painchaud: No, I am not confusing any of the definition you are bringing as example, as your examples are not pertinent in the context of Epistemology, more precisely, classifying by "TRUST LEVEL" the elementary constituents of an empirical science of nature.

1.1) The name of an elementary constituent of an empirical science of nature is not arbitrarily determined. It follows rules and there are existing systems for classifying the trust granted to an elementary constituents of an empirical science of nature.

1.2) I suggested you to consider Epistemology, more precisely, classifying elementary constituents of an empirical science of nature, determining names, etc.... Why? Because you indicated in this board that you were interested to re state the second principle of Thermodynamics and you clearly did not know about the science behind that (it took me time to find it out, so I know).

========== additional comments ==========

2) You were talking about re stating the Second Principle of Thermodynamics. I told you that I found it not necessary to re state the Second Principle of Thermodynamics, as it is doing its job. You told me that I had nothing interesting to say and that I was like your bad students, etc... In short, you want to re-state the Second Principle of Thermodynamics and it is a very nice project! Congratulation!

2.1) Science is not democratic, it is like democracy!

3) Then, I pointed out to you that in your search for a statement of a fundamental constituents of an empirical science of nature, one of the first thing to determine would be :

- Is it a Principle or a Law of Physics?

4) You told me that this difference was not important for you. It was a dictionary problem in your opinion. So, I understood immediately that you did not know about Epistemology and classification systems.

5) So, I took time to explain you what is Epistemology, as it was clear you knew nothing about this branch of Philosophy (from your comment, I could see that) and Epistemology's role in Empiric Science of Nature, more precisely a classification system for the knowledges of an empirical science of nature.

6) I explained to you that there are existing systems for classifying knowledges of an empirical science of nature. One of them dates from Henri Poincaré time and is still taught in France (as it is good, in my opinion). In this system, the scientists were distinguishing :

6.1) Facts (ex: measurements). Only true in a given context of measurement.

6.2) Principles of Physics (ex: Principles of Thermodynamics). Always true in known physics.

6.3) Laws of Physics (ex: Ohm's law) Always true.

6.4) Model (ex: Atomic Model - Bohr). Depends on the weaker constituent.

6.5) Theory (ex: Einstein SR and GR). Depends on the weaker constituent.

7) Then, I explained you an existing system of classification of knowledges from PMC University, which I believe is the only serious system that I have seen. And, I thought it would help you to formulate a new statement for the 2nd Principle of Thermodynamics.

8) In your last post, you are introducing various definition of principle from Quora and other medium that are clearly outside of the context of Epistemology, or systemic definition of knowledges of an empirical science of nature. Maybe you just do not understand ? I think you had no time to read what I say and that you are just filling post with words. Moreover, you are stating non pertinent definitions given in a very different context (why I used the example of the principle of a sewing machine - yes, it was relevant to explain your mistakes).

9) It is sure that if we search on the Internet for definition of Principle, there will be millions of non pertinent definitions, like on: Quora, Sewing Machines Principle and other principles that do not apply in Epistemology. This is my point...

10) It is also my opinion that the Second Principle of Thermodynamics is well stated as it is stated now. But, if you want to do a new statement, then I think you will have to study epistemology and look at existing systems for classifying knowledges of an empirical science of nature (the name of a constituent is not arbitrary). This, in order to choose a name that is relevant for the new restated second principle and many other aspects related to the statement of an elementary constituent of an empirical science of nature.

Like I said at the end of my last 3 posts, I have done what was possible to help you with your project of re-stating the Second Principle of Thermodynamics. Unless you need more time, I prefer to stop this discussion here.

Regards,

Dr. Alain JS P

Dear Alain,

why do you refuse to ask for three examples of "Principle" and three examples of "Law" that were not included in the discussion?

Instead, you gave one example each (6.2 and 6.3), which I already gave earlier. You have therefore ignored the fact that Ohm's law is not satisfied when the resistance changes with Joule-Lenz heat. You also ignored the fact that the second principle of thermodynamics is violated by fluctuations and more.

Can you give these 3+3=6 examples without praising epistemology once again?

Dear Professor Grzegorz M. Koczan ,

First, I wanted to thank you for taking time to write an answer to my last post.

A) Professor Koczan wrote:

"why do you refuse to ask for three examples of "Principle" and three examples of "Law" that were not included in the discussion?"

1) Comments from Dr. Alain JS Painchaud: My mouth is wide open and I am searching for a word that could describe how I feel in front of such a misunderstanding.... I will continue!

2) By reading this answer, I can assess that you did not understand anything about the "existing classification system" I was trying to explain you in order to help you in your project to re-state the second principle of Thermodynamics.

3) In lieu, you are focused in the definition from the thesaurus of the terms used (fact, principle, law, model and theory), while the purpose of the system that I explained you is to defined the level of trust in a given elementary constituent (true in a given context, always true in known-physics and always true).

4) By the way, I take time to tell that I am not in favor of re stating the Second Principle of Thermodynamics that is well stated, in my opinion. Yes, there is no relativistic considerations and there are no special cases addressing various scales of matter, but this principle has been stated for systems composed typically of N constituents (where N is number of Avogadro or 6X10^23 constituents).

5) A classification system is not preoccupied by the definition of the dictionary for fact, principle, law, model or theory (why I told you: It is not relevant, as we are preoccupied by the level of trust, not the words used to call the elementary constituent by Quora and other mediums.

6) So, the system that I try to describe you is concerned by the level of trust that is given to each of the "defined knowledge" (elementary constituent of an empirical science of nature, like Thermodynamics, per say). We care probably a little with the definition of the dictionary but it is more the level of trust that is important.

7) A defined knowledge of an empirical science of nature is called: An Elementary Constituent.

8) There are essentially 3 level of trust in the system that I explained you:

1- True in a given context.

2- Always true in known-physics.

3- Always true.

9) As you probably noticed, in the classification system that I explained you, there are 5 levels. So, 2 of the levels are combinations of other levels, due to the need for ;

a) Models (good for Scientific Research, Experimental Development and even engineering works, as it is proven and can be assigned a level of trust).

b) Theory (mostly for Scientific Research).

10) What are the elementary constituents for the classification system that I am trying to describe you?

a- Fact or measurement == Only true in a given measurement context.

b- Principle of Physics == Always true in known physics.

c- Law of Physics == Always true === The most trusted elementary constituent of an empirical science of nature is the "Law", as it is always true.

d- Models of physics: usually, they are made with a blend of elementary constituents ranked in the 3 first level. Its overall trust is directly determined by the weakest elementary constituent used to make the model. Now, model are usually proven at least at level 2. Which makes them very trustable for ED and Engineering works.

e- Theory : usually, they are made with a blend of elementary constituents ranked in the 3 first level. Its overall trust is directly determined by the weakest elementary constituent used to make the model. Theories, like Einstein Theories of Relativity was originally released for Scientific Research (until it is proven scientifically to be true and usable in day to day life).

11) In short, this system is important when stating an elementary constituent, like what you want to do with the second principle of thermodynamics (again, I am not in favor or restating the second principle of thermodynamics, as it is already very clear).

B) Professor Koczan wrote:

"You have therefore ignored the fact that Ohm's law is not satisfied when the resistance changes with Joule-Lenz heat. You also ignored the fact that the second principle of thermodynamics is violated by fluctuations and more."

12) Comments from Dr Alain JS Painchaud: Ohm's law will be true if you put the right value for the impedance-resistance. It is sure that if you consider a static system, then it will give errors when trying to experiment, for the reason that you stated (the resistance varies, so if you do not put varying resistance when computing the results, it will be wrong! There is nothing to discuss here, I agree and disagree with you, as Ohm's law is always true if you put the right value in the equation.

C) Professor Koczan wrote:

"Can you give these 3+3=6 examples without praising epistemology once again?"

13) Epistemology is a branch of philosophy that is supervising empirical sciences of nature. One of the branch of Epistemology is concerned with :

a) the statement of elementary constituents of an empirical science of nature

b) classification of elementary constituents of nature as a function of their level of trust.

I know this works very well, for I used it. Therefore, I would not hesitate to recommend it again.

Ok, that is it for my contributions. I hope I have been able to clear the ambiguities related to a classification systems for knowledges of an empirical science of nature!

Dear Alain,

I'm sorry to say that you are not a human, but an artificial intelligence (AI) - or you are producing posts using GPT chat. It's even worse because GPT chat tries to respond more to the point.

When asked for 3 examples of "Principle" and 3 examples of "Law", you write piles of nonsense or piles of not very relevant. I don't remember ever encountering such nonsense.

Can I ask you not to use AI and keep your posts concise on topic?

Dear Professor Grzegorz M. Koczan ,

In reference to your last post, I thank you for trying to explain me your various difficulties with various subjects that I tried to contribute to help your case of re-stating the second principle of thermodynamics.

In my opinion, there is a "language barrier", as what I tried to explain is very simple. Probably Google Translate is not offering the best translations to you? Or???

In the post of Professor Koczan, you are concerned with thesaurus definitions for words like:

1- Principle of physics

2- Law of physics

3- Etc..

The point is that thesaurus definitions are not relevant, or just a little.

A classification system for knowledges of an empirical sciences is concerned with:

- the level of trust associated with a given knowledge,

Said in another manner, this system is not preoccupied by the thesaurus definitions of elementary constituents but rather by their level of trust (we do not care what is the definition of Quora, the sewing machine association, etc...)

Basically, there are 3 fundamental level of trust for a knowledge of an empirical science of nature like the one that I studied (French Academy are so good and well organized):

1- True in the context of a measurement == a measurement == could have been called "knowledge A"

2- Always True in Known-Physics == a principle of physics -- could have been called "Knowledge B".

3- Always True == a law of physics == could have been called "knowledge C".

Then, based on these level of trust and their experiences in laboratory experiments, they defined 5 types of knowledges (here, there is a bit of room for your research of definitions with dictionary, because they have chosen names that are kind of representative of the level of trust):

1- Fact of physics - measurement, which are true in a given context.

2- Principle of Physics -- which are always true in known-physics.

3- Laws of Physics -- which are always true.

4- Models of Physics -- for which the trust level depends on the weakest trust level of all the fundamental constituents associated with it.

5- Theory of Physics -- for which the trust level depends on the weakest trust level of all the fundamental constituents associated with it.

For me, it is clear ... I can not imagine consulting the thesaurus for the definition of "principle", as this could have been called "knowledge B" or anything else. Like I said, a classification system for knowledges of an empirical science of nature is concerned with the level of trust that we can put in a given knowledge.

This said, I agree with you that it is easy to confuse with the thesaurus definition, that is not even relevant (or, probably just a little).

That must have been my last contribution to your Board about the Second Principle of Thermodynamics. As I said often, for me, the Second Principle of Thermodynamics is well stated and I see no reason to include such things as relativistic considerations, because in more than 99% of Thermodynamics applications, it would only complicate the equations more, without bringing any benefits.

Dr. Alain JS P.

Dear Alain,

language doesn't matter here. You do not and will not provide the requested examples because you are simply unable to do so. The knowledge classification system you mentioned does not sufficiently define the division you first mentioned. Besides, you love to pour water out loud.

Professor Grzegorz M. Koczan ,

Thank you for your constructive comments!

Like I said, probably 10 posts ago, our conversation is very close to reach a result and I hope we will find something to help you in your project to state again the second principle of thermodynamics.

A) Professor Koczan wrote:

"You do not and will not provide the requested examples because you are simply unable to do so."

1)Comments from Dr. Alain JS Painchaud: Sincerely, I do not know what examples you are looking for. I thought my last post was a good explanation but it was not, if I refer to your reactions above. If you are still looking for a definition from the dictionary, it is not relevant. Moreover, I feel that the tone you are employing is not encouraging constructive discussions (not trying to understand but bullying).

2) I gave you basic definitions for determination between 3 basics knowledges that I use (+ 2 combinations - ex: model and theory). If you do not like the way this system is structured or where the definitions start and end, then you might as well make your own system? Or consult literature on the topic and find out where you have scientific margins to change that.

3) My point to explain you this system was because you were going to state a new second principle without taking into account Philosophy and Epistemology. Empirical sciences of nature are structured in a similar manner as a religion...

4) The system that I described you is a system that I use in my little Academy and it works well.

5) It prevents others from saying that they over turned a law of physics with an experiment that is not relevant.

B) Professor Koczan wrote:

"The knowledge classification system you mentioned does not sufficiently define the division you first mentioned."

6) Comments from Dr. Alain JS Painchaud: I am unsure what you are referring to. Probably I should give you references to the original system (not mine, but the one coming from PMC University).

7) If it is of interests for your Academy, just let me know, they have made an entire book on the subject and there are mountains of good scientific literature on the topic of Epistemology, philosophy and classification of knowledges of an empirical science of nature.

8) None of the references that I have seen are discussing the topics you are invoking above.

Thank you for your comments. I am stopping here for my contribution to this board.

Dear Alain,

readers and I do not have time to wait until death (ours or yours) for you to provide specific requested examples. So I will give these examples myself.

I will start with principles, because there are fewer of them than laws:

I. Archimedes' principle of buoyancy (sometimes called a law, but it is a principle - if you understand it).

II. Pascal's Principle (also sometimes called a law, but it is a principle).

III. The principle of energy equipartition.

Now the laws:

1. The law of universal gravitation.

2. Boyle-Mariotte law of isothermal transformation.

3. Wien's law of black body radiation.

Dear Professor Grzegorz M. Koczan ,

In this last post, I answer more precisely the question of your board.

I was surprised to noticed that you change your answers after I type my answers.... Naturally, after you change your answers, my answers look less pertinent or founded, so I have to write more general statement to make them always true and pertinent.

You are listing examples of principles and laws of physics, without explaining me :

1- How your classification system of knowledges works.

2- What is the trust level for each knowledge that you listed above.

Without this information, your list is meaningless in my opinion. I can not even comment, except maybe macroscopically speaking (see A.4) below). In my opinion, with the list of laws and principles you are giving me, you are confusing math, physics and philosophy definition of principles and laws. It is a blend of all that.

What I presented to you in this board is what physicists have to do when they do a classification system for their knowledges (at least, it is my understanding). It is different from what mathematicians use (axioms, etc...) even if the system of physicists use the same elementary constituents of mathematics when constructing and stating elementary constituents in Physics.

Never mind, what you are explaining above is clear now. A classification system can not be based on the definition from the dictionary, like you pretended earlier...

Instead, the classification system has to be based on the trust level associated with a knowledge of an empirical science of nature *1 (Like I was saying from the beginning and you were bullying me with non pertinent comments because you did not know how to classify knowledges, philosophy and epistemology).

So, in my opinion, you were ignorant about Epistemology (deals with what I know) and how to manage knowledges of an empirical science of nature. The only purpose of posting here was to try to help your project. In conclusion, I hope it will help your project and, maybe, ultimately, you, as a professor and scientist.

It seems that between the time of Henri Poincaré and today, philosophy and many of its branches took a big dip in the eyes of scientists, as the nomenclature used does not seem to be appropriate *2. In short, all academia are using "thesaurus definition of knowledges" in lieu of the level of trust of the knowledge (because they never studied Epistemology, even if they have PhD). It is probably better to do a mistake in the name of a knowledge than in the design of a machine!!!

Today, a lot of scientists refrain from things coming from religions. I am not very religious but that's not the point. What many scientist do not know is that their own empirical science of nature is build exactly on the same structure as a religion, because humans have no choice but to believe certain evidence, otherwise we would not have an empirical science of nature that works. In short, the only difference between a religion and an empirical science of nature lies in spirituality (the way each persons live their lives).

TO ANSWER THE QUESTION OF YOUR BOARD:

A) If I were you, I would not change the statement of the Second Law of Thermodynamics but only its name, as it is a Principle of Physics, not a Law of Physics. It is the same for the 1st Principle of Thermodynamics.

A.1) The 2nd Law of thermodynamics can be stated as a law of physics in lieu of a principle of physics. It is all a question of conventions and definitions. This latest part is a mix of physics, mathematics and philosophy. *3,4,5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10.

A.2) Per Henri Poincaré (*11, page 15, 12 and others above):

"When a law has received sufficient confirmation from experience, we can adopt two attitudes, or leave this law in the fray; it will then be subjected to an incessant revision which will undoubtedly end up demonstrating that it is only approximate. Or it can be made a principle, adopting conventions such that the proposition is certainly true.

Henri POINCARE (1854-1912, French mathematician, physicist and philosopher)"

A.3) In short, to state a principle of physics in the form of a law of physics would probably hurt the entire disciplines later, more than it would help. This, as scientists that are dealing with an untrue statement might make errors in their decisions. All this to say that the 1st and 2nd Principle of Thermodynamics should be left as Principle of Physics (always true in known-physics), not laws of Physics (always true). Naturally, it is an opinion.

A.4) As for your example above, metaphysics as always been separated from Physics for evident reasons. I think physics and metaphysics are 2 different disciplines.

B)After, I would propose to correct the nomenclature in scientific literature to reflect, at least, a bit of a standard. So to be able to compare apples with apples because now, a lot of things called laws of physics are indeed principles, etc...

C) It would probably be a good idea to build a course based on this course from the Pierre Marie Curie University below. It is well mounted and very well explained, like most scientific works done by our Beloved French Academy.

D) I think that all (except laws of physics) should be linked to the periodic table of elements, as it is the most reliable scientific work that has been done by humans (Russia Academy of Science, Dimitry Mendeleev, 1869). Naturally, it is from our Beloved Russia, like many other discoveries. In my humble opinion, the revised an actual periodic table is a MODEL OF PHYSICS that is as reliable as a principle of physics (like 2nd principle of thermodynamics, per say). In short, the periodic table corresponds to a model of physics where the less reliable components are principle of physics.

E) The Standard Model of particle physics, or the list of particles (a model of physics) is also based on Energy Principles, like Thermodynamics. Just to explain how strong is a Principle of Physics.

F) No matter how strong is a Principle of Physics, it still has a domain where it is valid. Outside of this domain, it is not valid. Why the Principle of Thermodynamics could seem wrong in contexts that are simply outside of their domain of validity.

Bibliography on Math Proofs, Logic, Epistemology and Philosophy:

1- Sagault, P. (2009). Introduction à la pensée scientifique moderne. Paris: Université Pierre et Marie Curie (see link below):

https://www.academia.edu/96405034/PHILO_INTRODUCTION_A_LA_PENSEE_SCIENTIFIQUE_MODERNE_267_Pages_14_Mo

2- Poincaré, H. (1905). Science and Hypothesis. New York: The Walter Scott Publishing Co., Ltd.

3- Bonnefoy, O. (2016). Thermodynamique.Saint-Etienne: École Nationale Supérieure des Mines de Saint-Etienne. Page 15 for purpose related to this topic.

4- Sundstrom, T. (2014). Mathematical Reasonning Writting and Proof. Allendale, MI: Grand Valley State University.

5- Kracht, M. (2003, September 16). The Mathematics of Language. The Mathematics of Language. Los Angeles, California, USA: UCLA.

6- Lipschutz, S. (1966). Theory and Problems of Finite Mathematics. New York: McGraw-Hill.

7- Roberts, J. C. (2015). An Introduction to Mathematical Proofs. Boca Raton: Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.

8- Shapiro, S. (2005). The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

9- Sauer, T. a. (2009). David Hilbert's Lectures on the foundations of Physics, 1915-1927.Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.

10- Kisacanin, B. (2002). Mathematical Problems and Proofs. New York, Boston, London, Dordrecht, Moscow: Cluwer Academic Publisher.

11- Bonnefoy, O. (2016). Thermodynamique.Saint-Etienne: École Nationale Supérieure des Mines de Saint-Etienne. Page 15 for purpose related to this topic.

12- Sundstrom, T. (2014). Mathematical Reasonning Writting and Proof. Allendale, MI: Grand Valley State University.