On February 5, 2021, Casper A. Helder posted the question “can the second law of thermodynamics be abandoned?” I was surprised to read that the second law )together with the first law( the only two laws that remain unchanged since their formulation by Clausius in 1867, are boldly doubted. Moreover, the entropy in which its propensity to grow is the second law is not even mentioned, and therefore, I wrote a short cynical answer. To my surprise every few days since I followed this question, more people add answers and for today, there are 6618 reads and 386 answers! For Example, Henning Struchtrup a professor at Victoria university working in the field wrote: “No doubt one can criticize Carnot or Clausius but one should not forget that they were at the very beginning”. Struchtrup received 13 recommendations for his answers. I wonder what causes a respectful scientist from this field to say that no doubt that Carnot and Clausius's works are problematics.
From reading part of the answers including Helder's argumentation, I believe that somehow in the last century, the definition and therefore the meaning of the second law was forgotten. Hereafter, I will summarize the definition of the second law and its immediate consequences.
2nd Law Definition: In any irreversible process, the entropy S increases.
Irreversibility: If we have a reservoir at a temperature T and one adds an amount of energy Q in an irreversible route its entropy increases by S>Q/T. If the process is reversible then the entropy increase is S=Q/T. This inequality is called Clausius inequality.
The amount of energy added or removed from a reservoir is a measurable quantity. However, we see that in an irreversible path "T" is smaller than T in a reversible path of the same system. Therefore, we cannot define temperature and therefore entropy for a system, in an irreversible route.
Equilibrium: If a closed system is resting for a long time its entropy will increase to the maximum. Clausius inequality means that energy flows from hot to cold and therefore in equilibrium all the subsystems of an ensemble have equal temperature i.e. all its degrees of freedom have the same amount of energy i.e. in an ideal gas every degree of freedom of any molecule has kT/2 energy. Here k is the Boltzmann constant, which is the gas constant, divided by the Avogadro number and T is the temperature. Moreover, in equilibrium, all the microstates (a distinguishable configuration of any ensemble) have an identical amount of energy. Therefore,
Temperature and Entropy are defined only for systems in Equilibrium: to find the temperature of an ensemble in equilibrium one can take a single molecule measure its energy and know the temperature. However, this is seldom the case. Usually, there are “hotter” molecules and “colder” ones and this is the reason why both the entropy and temperature are defined only in equilibrium. This ambiguity about the “temperatures” out of equilibrium causes all kinds of anomalous behaviors like “super cooling” and the Mpemba paradox. This is why the application of the 2nd law has difficulties in microscopic systems. These phenomena are proving Clausius's inequality and the second law rather than disproving it.
Maximum Entropy and Quantum theory. Since in equilibrium the entropy expression of a system is maximum, every ensemble tends to reach spontaneously equilibrium. Therefore, one can calculate many properties of an ensemble by maximizing the statistical expression of the entropy (Max Entropy Technique). Planck did such a calculation for EM radiation in equilibrium with a materialistic body and found the quantized nature of energy. Is abandoning the 2ndlaw means giving up the Quantum theory? Can physics without entropy exist?
I post this question to find out if there is any concrete scientific evidence or argumentation that may cause scientists to declare that there is serious criticism against Clausius's inequality, Carnot's efficiency, and the second law.
Most likely, the absolute time is the main real thing in the universe that could make the relative time and relative distance. I think the nothingness in the earliest universe could increase relatively with absolute time, and then the universe continues many cyclic processes, making many similar arrangements/groups. Most probably, the nothingness in the universe increases infinitely without reversing, making relative existence. I think the standard elementary particles don't feel the distance in the structure between the space they exist. Also, the entangled particles likely don't feel the distance between them and communicate faster than light.
Time could create everything. Time is real, and it continues from moment to moment. Time could create the universe and continue making the edge (making dimensions) of the universe while continuing from nothingness to more nothingnesses (increasing nothingness) with the directions of time relatively. Time is something. A virtual gap of nothing is somewhat similar to a +0-0 infinitely small gap/distance that could make the relative existence and continuation of nothingness (0). Infinite nothingness could be the absolute minus/negative time in the nothing universe. It could become a plus/positive time, and use nothingness as a substance to make more nothingnesses.
The charge is an output of both negative and positive charges in matter or antimatter, and only one (positive or negative) charge didn't make the entire structure in matter or antimatter. If electrons have a positive effect because they are filled with enough dimensions that don't require an attraction and the positrons are filled with opposite dimensions, then the difference between matter and antimatter would not be related to their charge, and it would only relate to their matter and antimatter structure. Probably, electrons don't make the charge called electric charge because likely the protons make the charge itself, causing it to make electrons. And likely, the anti-protons make the anti-charge itself, causing it to make positrons. Protons are attracting dimensions of electrons, staying at the center of atoms. But antimatter protons would provide dimensions, using the anti-dimensions of its quarks, and behave somewhat like electrons. Positrons would take dimensions from anti-protons, and behave somewhat like protons. If two or more anti-protons can't stay together because of their electron nature and Pauli Exclusion Principle, then it can create an asymmetry between matter atoms and antimatter atoms. And anti-protons would not support making antimatter atoms larger than hydrogen atoms.
The eternal growth of the universe increases entropy always. The universe is not only the observable universe, and a gravitational force can convert matter into energy decreasing the entropy in the observable universe. All the matter in the universe would come back, becoming energy with the help of the particles that make the gravitational force. The Buddha said, a rain of energized water (like water sticks, water robs, etc) fills the world (island universe) gradually, and stays stably filled for a long time until cosmic air (space/virtual particles) comes into the filled world (island universe), causing to expand the universe. And then, the world (island universe) stays stably expanded until the contraction. Perhaps, the virtual particles in space (like air) come into low dense space areas (between galaxies) until those virtual particles can go there uniformly near the speed of light.
If energy beams must collide and make matter and antimatter, then it is safe to say that the Big Bang was a Big Bounce. The Buddha said that this great universe which has a thousand billion Sakwala (Galaxies) undergoes a cyclic process within a duration called a Maha-Kalpa. The Buddha explained a lot of things about the process of the universe. And we can find those teachings in the Higher (Abhi) Doctrine (Dhamma) in Theravada Buddhism. The early universe was very huge. And the name called Big Bang was helpful for creationists to prevent people from thinking about possible energy collisions that could happen in an existing universe. Astronomers and physicists should try to change that name (Big Bang) if they are really truthful.
The Fortunate One (Bhaagyavwaan Buddha) said this: "A thousand times the world in which the sun and moon revolve and light up the quarters with their brightness is called a thousandfold minor world system. In that thousandfold world system there are a thousand moons, a thousand suns, a thousand Sinerus king of mountains, a thousand Jambudlpas, a thousand Aparagoyanas, a thousand Uttarakurus, a thousand Pubbavidehas, and a thousand four great oceans; a thousand four great kings, a thousand [heavens] of devas [ruled by] the four great kings, a thousand Tavatimsa [heavens], a thousand Yama [heavens], a thousand Tusita [heavens], a thousand [heavens] of devas who delight in creation, a thousand [heavens] of devas who control what is created by others, a thousand Brahma worlds."
(Anguttara Nikaya The Numerical Discourse Page:313-314).
"There is also a larger universe, consisting of a thousand of these small universes, called the middle universe. [In addition,] there is a great universe that consists of a thousand middle universes. This is called the triple thousand–great universe. All of the great universe [that comprises many thousands of middle and small universes] undergoes the cycle of creation and destruction, and each locality where sentient beings reside is called a buddha land (buddha-kṣetra)." (LengthyDiscourses Page: 152)
"All of the great universe [that comprises many thousands of middle and small universes] undergoes the cycle of creation and destruction," (LengthyDiscourses Page: 152)
If you would read my question, you would understand that I am a second law defender. I wrote several papers about information theory and thermodynamics and I agree that information is entropy. I think that the problem today is that people are not reading past papers!
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Control Systems Engineering
- Filtering