What physical event did Clausius discover when he wrote his mathematical expression for thermodynamic entropy? The question has never been answered. It and other crucial knowledge is missing from fundamental physics. The root cause is due to this indispensable physics lesson being no longer taught , I quote from:   

College Physics; Sears, Zemansky; 3rd ed.; 1960; Page 1, Chapter 1:

1-1 The fundamental indefinables of mechanics. Physics has been called the science of measurement. To quote from Lord Kelvin (1824-1907), "I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcely, in your thoughts, advanced to the stage of Science, whatever the matter may be."

A definition of a quantity in physics must provide a set of rules for calculating it in terms of other quantities that can be measured.  Thus, when momentum is defined as the product of "mass" and "velocity," the rule for calculating momentum is contained within the  definition, and all that is necessary is to know how to measure mass and velocity. The definition of velocity is given in terms of length and time, but there are no simpler or more fundamental quantities in terms of which length and time may be  expressed. Length and time are two of the indefinables of mechanics. It has been found possible to express all the quantities of mechanics in terms of only three indefinables. The third may be taken to be "mass" or "force" with equal justification. We shall choose mass as the third indefinable of mechanics. 

In geometry, the fundamental indefinable is the "point." The geometer asks his disciple to build any picture of a point in his mind, provided the picture is consistent with what the geometer says about the point. In physics, the situation is not so subtle. Physicists from all over the world have international committees at whose meetings the rules of measurement of the indefinables are adopted. The rule for measuring an indefinable takes the place of a definition. ...

Chapter 15, page 286; 15-1:

To describe the equilibrium states of mechanical systems, as well as to study and predict the motions of rigid bodies and fluids, only three fundamental indefinables were needed: length, mass, and time. Every other physical quantity of importance in mechanics could be expressed in terms of these three indefinables., We come now, however, to a series of phenomena, called thermal effects or heat phenomena, which involve aspects that are essentially nonmechanical and which require for their description a fourth fundamental indefinable, the temperature. ...

What is temperature? - ResearchGate. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_temperature [accessed Aug 14, 2016].

The lesson learned leads to correction of itself. The decision to  make mass an indefinable property was the first error of and first intrusion of theoretical physics into physics equations. Force should not have been chosen to be indefinable either. The second error was the decision to make temperature an indefinable property. What the lesson teaches is that defined properties are defined in terms of pre-existing properties. When the lesson is fully learned and understood, only the properties, and their units, of empirical evidence can be rightfully fundamental indefinable properties. All other properties must be defined in some combination of the same terms as is their empirical evidence. If this is not done, then fundamental unity is lost right from the start. This occurs because the addition of artificial indefinable properties interrupts the dependence of physics on learning that which empirical evidence is revealing to us. We lose important parts of that learning. Those missing parts are open doors for theorists to invent workable but unnatural substitutes to serve in place of the missing empirically revealed knowledge. Theoretical physics rushes forward into empirically unsupported territory while ignoring the physics fact that physicists do not know what either mass or temperature are. This physics fact explains why we are given indirect explanations and circular definitions. The physics fact that physicists have not yet explained what is temperature, is the reason that physicists cannot explain what it was that Clausius discovered when he wrote his mathematical expressions for thermodynamic entropy. Boltzmann's entropy is not thermodynamic entropy. 

Due to lack of interest by those who don't even know how to define temperature, yet teach of various forms of entropies, I will review their teachings and then provide the correct definition of Clausius' thermodynamic entropy . The entropy lesson begins with mentioning Clausius' formula for thermodynamic entropy. His discovery of thermodynamic entropy is not explained. The instruction mentions relationships, such as being proportional to, to other properties. An example would be teach that Clauius' thermodynamic entropy is a measure of average molecular kinetic energy. What the instructor should have taught was that Clausius' thermodynamic entropy is proportional to average molecular kinetic energy. Even this statement is not always correct, such as when volume is increased without loss of energy and with a constant number of molecules, although usually it is. Then the instruction usually moves on to Boltzmann's entropy which is not the same thing, and then on to other entropies that are even further removed from Clausius' discovery. First temperature must be made a defined property. This is equivalent to explaining what temperature is. Temperature, after modification due to its scale being arbitrarily set, is the rate of exchange of kinetic energy between gas molecules. The modification is merely that of introducing a proportionality constant. Its corrected units, first offered in the a understood by theoretical physics, are joules/second. In its empirical the units are different but they translate into joules/second. The empirical units fit with the empirical forms of the equations involved. That is not theoretical physics. That is my work. My further use of temperature involves using the modified temperature which is merely Tm=kT. the modified temperature equals the normal reading of temperature in the kelvin scale multiplied by the necessary proportionality constant. Now for Clausius thermodynamic entropy. It is S=Q/T where Q is heat or energy in transit. The formula including the defined form of adjusted temperature reads: Thermodynamic entropy is the time it takes for heat to be absorbed at a constant temperature. This applies both externally, as in the case of a Carnot engine,  and internally to the gas, as in the case of just a given volume of gas. The internal thermodynamic entropy is the time it takes for average molecular kinetic energy to be transferred from one gas molecule to another as if those molecules were in single file forming a circle. The internal thermodynamic entropy is the time it takes to pass the average kinetic energy from one atom to another until it has passed completely around the circle. Now the gas isn't really formed in a circle, but, the derivation of an ideal gas implies that condition to be equivalent to the actual condition of the gas. For a single ideal gas atom that time is Boltzmann's constant where it has been found to have the empirical units of seconds. For a mole of ideal gas, the thermodynamic entropy is the Universal Gas Constant. The change in thermodynamic entropy does not occur in a constant volume, perfectly insulated gas. The dS in dS=dQ/T takes place when thermodynamic entropy is calculated for a Carnot engine that leaks unused heat away into the heat sink. The dS is the time it takes for the heat sink to absorb the leaked heat at the constant temperature of the heat sink,  and, as if the heat, is absorbed in the manner described above for internal thermodynamic entropy, except that the heat sink takes the place of the internal gas. The circle analogy no longer applies. The analogy is as if the molecules of the neat sink are lined up in a straight line and pass incremental values of the absorbed heat from molecule to molecule until all the leaked heat is absorbed. The incremental value of heat is taken to be the same magnitude as the average molecular kinetic energy of the heat sink. This last description is an ideal description. The conditions used by Clausius were ideal conditions of an ideal gas. For a real heat sink its average molecular kinetic energy changes insignificantly.  But, it does change. The thermodynamic entropy of the Carnot engine remains unchanged. The thermodynamic entropies of the heat sink, and, also the heat source, change. The change in thermodynamic entropy dS applies to the heat sink and the heat source. their thermodynamic entropies change in equal amounts. 

Entropy is a bridge between classical field theory physics and quantum physics. There are different types of entropies. Most are relatively easy to understand. But, there is this odd situation that the first entropy was thermodynamic entropy discovered by Clausius and it is an unexplained physics property to this day.  

"What physical event did Clausius discover when he wrote his mathematical expression for thermodynamic entropy?"

Here is the point of this message. Does it matter what physical event Clausius discovered. Thermodynamic entropy is a state function. What else could it be or should it be? Why ask such a question after all these years? Physics has moved well passed Clausius' work and has done very well. Why ask such a question of professional physicists? Here is the reason why: If I were to ask "What physics event does Boltzmann's constant represent?" Its a constant!! Why would there be anything more of significance to say about it. Its been used and used and successfully so. Yes it has, but My work with the equations of physics returned to their empirical forms shows that Boltzmann's constant has an undiscovered important physics purpose. skipping passed the work that defined temperature, it is necessary to point out that the temperature Kelvin scale is arbitrarily set. When temperature is defined, it needs to be modified with a proportionality constant k to make temperature's magnitude match with its definition. Without going into that in detail, readers are informed that temperature needed adjusting and that adjustment should be taken into consideration for the explanation of Boltzmann's constant. I won't do that, but I needed to make it known that what I will say is correct when the adjusted temperature is used instead of the regular temperature. Now I will say what physical event Boltzmann's constant represents: Boltzmann's constant is the thermodynamic entropy of a single simple gas molecule such as hydrogen and certainly as an ideal gas atom. It follows then that the Universal Gas constant is the thermodynamic entropy of a mole of gas. I moved from Clausius' thermodynamic entropy to Boltzmann's constant and then to the Universal Gas constant. All three are claimed to be examples of Clausius' thermodynamic entropy. I didn't yet say what Clausius' thermodynamic entropy is.   

Why do you ask questions for which you already have the answer? Any attempt to answer your question is futile. I suggest you replace "physical event" with "physical entity".

Dwight,

Why do you ask? Don't you write your messages your way? The word "event" was chosen because it is accurate. Your suggestion of "entity" misses the mark. "Any attempt to answer your question is futile." Then so be it. There are readers that don't publicly participate for obvious reasons. You don't know what their interest is. Some of them understand that physics needs to fill in its blanks. I fill them in and put their solutions to work. Why does it bother you? Your use of the word "futile" works both ways. It is futile to make the point that mass is not defined among others who work with loose definitions and imaginative substitutes placed out of our reach in physics heavens. It is a fact, not just my opinion, that mass is undefined, that temperature is undefined, that electric charge is circularly described, that physicists don't know what Clausius' thermodynamic entropy is, electric permittivity is an unknown, magnetic permeability is an unknown, the physical meanings of some important constants are unknown. There is no evidence at all that space or time suffer effects or can cause them. The space-time idea is an empirically unverifiable substitute because physicists didn't define mass. Apparently, you like physics the way it is. Work with it. Do what you think is right. So will I.      

Does it matter what physical event Clausius discovered? Of course it does! How do physicists justify skipping from what they know, or think they know, to something else that they know, or think they know, while knowingly skipping passed what they don't know. They clearly know that they don't know because they first tried to know it. It is tempting for them to conclude too too easily that they can make do with what they know and move forward theoretically without what they don't know. After all, they know something or somethings that they can say about that that they don't know that makes it seem as if they do know or kinda know that which they can't quite make known when pressed. What seems to work at times like that is to act like it shouldn't be so hard to explain the inexplicable to others whom know just enough less to maybe believe that the inexplicable was just explained. Passing the blame works well even in classrooms. Remember an instructor pulling that one on you in front of the rest of the class. The instructor, who just failed to explain the inexplicable, acted as if it is inexplicable that you didn't understand its explanation. It goes on in forums also. Here is something that is explainable: An important fundamental science like physics cannot play games. What is known should be explained. What is not known should be advertised as being in need of help, as soon as possible, so that physics might move forward without the temptation to substitute guesses to fill in blanks of knowledge. The fundamentals matter but, they are incomplete. Before all the other entropies were developed, there was the real thermodynamic entropy. The real entropy that is the "arrow of time". Here's the answer partially. Clausius' thermodynamic entropy is a measure of time. It is the time required for heat to be ...  

Dear James,

My problem is trying to understand your point of view and the reasons for your taking the positions that you do. It is dificult to discuss issues with you because it seems that you hold your ides to be absolutely true in spite of evidence to the contrary. Many of your ideas are outside of mainstream physics and they may very well be right but you need to provide cogent reasons, evidence, and data that show where and why the mainstream view is wrong. In the spirit of promoting dialog not animosity I am taking the liberty of responding point by point to your recent reply to me:

Dwight,

Why do you ask? Don't you write your messages your way? The word "event" was chosen because it is accurate. Your suggestion of "entity" misses the mark. "Any attempt to answer your question is futile." Then so be it. There are readers that don't publicly participate for obvious reasons. You don't know what their interest is. Some of them understand that physics needs to fill in its blanks. I fill them in and put their solutions to work. Why does it bother you? Your use of the word "futile" works both ways. It is futile to make the point that mass is not defined among others who work with loose definitions and imaginative substitutes placed out of our reach in physics heavens. It is a fact, not just my opinion, that mass is undefined, that temperature is undefined, that electric charge is circularly described, that physicists don't know what Clausius' thermodynamic entropy is, electric permittivity is an unknown, magnetic permeability is an unknown, the physical meanings of some important constants are unknown. There is no evidence at all that space or time suffer effects or can cause them. The space-time idea is an empirically unverifiable substitute because physicists didn't define mass. Apparently, you like physics the way it is. Work with it. Do what you think is right. So will I.      

·      “Don't you write your messages your way? The word "event" was chosen because it is accurate. Your suggestion of "entity" misses the mark.” Yes, I write my messages my way but I try to use terms that are clear and understandable by my intended audience. I don’t always succeed, to be sure, but in failing to do so the message fails to communicate my thinking. Your original question asks “What physical event did Clausius discover . . . ? I do not understand what you mean by “physical event”. I believe that for most people an “event” is an occurrence at a definite time and place. In this meaning, “entropy” is not an “event” but it is the “thing” that Clausius “discovered” – although I would argue that he didn’t really “discover” it but rather came up with the “concept” of entropy as a “abstract idea” rather than as a pre-existing thing to be “discovered”. I don’t know what be the mark that I “missed”?

·       “It is a fact, not just my opinion, that mass is undefined, that temperature is undefined, that electric charge is circularly described, that physicists don't know what Clausius' thermodynamic entropy is. . . “ I both agree and disagree with what you say. I disagree with your stating flat out that it is a fact that the concepts that you list are “undefined” or “unknown”. “Mass” is not so much a problem as is “energy” of which mass is a manifestation in the sense that pure energy (photons) if confined in a box has no momentum but possesses mass and by shrinking the box all of the energy contained therein converts to mass and locally warps space to create geometric gravity. Electric charge is fundamental to electromagnetism (EM) without which we would have no Universe as we know it to be today. Charge is to EM as mass is to energy and both are quantized although both have continuum states as well.. As a physicist by academic training and as I have expressed to you previously, I feel that I have a good understanding of both entropy and temperature. I see neither concept as “undefined” and I think that physicists do have a sound understanding of both concpts: Temperature labels the state of a thermodynamic system and entropy is a measure of how energy is distributed within that state.

·      “There is no evidence at all that space or time suffer effects or can cause them. The space-time idea is an empirically unverifiable substitute because physicists didn't define mass.” As stated above neither space nor time cause effects but both are subject to effects caused by external agents. Einstein’s geometric warping of spacetime by concentrated mass is well documented and visibly accessible by the now many photos of gravitational lensing. I don’t see the connection, be there one, between mass and spacetime. I suppose we could have a Universe composed entirely of “dark matter” with neither mass nor energy but it might be dynamically boring. Energy propels the Universe by endowing it with both mass and motion.

In conclusión I suppose that you and I live in different conceptual universes. That we do so is of no fundamental importance. The Universe is what it is and it does what it does without heed to what we humans here on planet Earth might think it is and does.

Cheers!

Typically people trying to do physics seek answers to questions to enable new physics to be done. What new possibilities do you feel are opened with definitions of these terms that fit your criterion? What would these answers enable?  

Dear Dwight,

Ok. I responded to your message in the manner that I thought you intended it. I don't feel weak. Lets put that aside because telling each other that we aren't listening doesn't go anywhere. I don't subscribe to Relativity theory. I am not an expert on it, but it is due in part to the push to keep it going further and further into the chalkboard. what I mean  is it belongs on the chalkboard. It is what theorists step back, look at, and say things like "The math looks right. It hints at something more,something further from our limited sensibilities." Nothing stops it. Even lack  of empirical evidence doesn't dent it. I sense more behind this domination than physics. When that "more" shows itself, I press harder. 

Your message was very nice. So let me make one point and see if it has value in your view:

"I believe that for most people an “event” is an occurrence at a definite time and place. ... "

Clausius' thermodynamic entropy is the time it takes for energy to be absorbed into the gas from the heat source. It is equally the time it takes for energy to be absorbed from the gas into the heat sink. Those two values for the Carnot engine are equal. I know the energy amounts are different for the two events. It is the time it takes for either amount of energy to be absorbed in each of the two separate cases. A thing is a thing is anything. What I described occurs at a steadily constant rate in both cases. It is the time it takes for both cases that Clausius was unknowingly calculating. Clausius had the disadvantage of working with an undefined temperature. After mass is defined, it leads quickly to the definition of temperature. Learning what temperature is leads immediately to an understanding of Clausius' equation for thermodynamic entropy. I don't at this time include an explanation for the inequality form of his equation. Let that wait. It is easy, but let it wait until i know what your reaction thus far is. What needs to be said in support of the above is that temperature is the average rate of exchange of energy between molecules. I need to qualify that last sentence by drawing attention to the arbitrary scale set for temperature. In order for temperature to be what it should always have been, a proportionality constant is necessary to make temperature give the correct magnitude for the rate. There is one more point that needs to be made. The time period used in the denominator for either rate is an incremental value that occurs over and over again. That incremental value of time is the single most unifying term of all. It is what brings fundamental unity into the open and solves unsolved problems. That is a different matter, but, it is part of this explanation of thermodynamic entropy. Just in case I don't seem to have made my case regarding fundamental unity, I will add that that increment of time is of great importance when discussing electric charge. Since you mentioned electric charge, i will mention in return that it is electromagnetic effects that are known. Electric charge is saddled with a circular definition. That, of course, goes away. Your claim that there is empirical evidence to support space-time is incorrect. There are no measurements made of either space or time. There is no evidence for either one suffering effects or causing effects. What the evidence attributed in support of space-time is telling us is that mass needs to be defined. For mass, one can cite empirical evidence. i say that mass is what causes lensing. Mass is very much about the behavior of light. This is the kind of connection that fundamental unity supplies. Perhaps you might have read my saying that when mass was made an indefinable property, the theorists that made that decision eliminated fundamental unity from physics equations. I will leave it at that. I ask questions and give hints while I am looking for a sign that someone recognizes that there is a problem. Until they recognize that it is a problem, no solution can be put forward. There is no marketplace for solutions to problems that don't exist. That is why I take thrusts and then pull back. If the problem isn't recognized, then mentioning the solution is a waste of both sides time.  Thank  you for your message. I didn't deal with all of it, but, lets see what you think of my message before going further. 

In this meaning, “entropy” is not an “event” but it is the “thing” that Clausius “discovered” – although I would argue that he didn’t really “discover” it but rather came up with the “concept” of entropy as a “abstract idea” rather than as a pre-existing thing to be “discovered”. I don’t know what be the mark that I “missed”?

What physical event did Clausius discover when he wrote his mathematical expression for thermodynamic entropy? - ResearchGate. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_physical_event_did_Clausius_discover_when_he_wrote_his_mathematical_expression_for_thermodynamic_entropy [accessed Sep 17, 2016].

Dear Paul C. Colby,

"Typically people trying to do physics seek answers to questions to enable new physics to be done."

First I draw attention to the officially recognized problems from which physics suffers. It is somewhat ironic that I have to repeat what are these officially recognized problems  to physicists. They react as if I made them up. The first three are: Mass is not yet a defined property; temperature is not yet a defined property; electric charge is "explained" with a circular definition. That last sentence is a report of the current condition of physics. These problems are not of my imaginative making. The problem isn't mine. the problem is that physics has become sloppy. Sloppy physics (I don't mean sloppy mathematics.) has given rise to theorists as the ruling class of physics. If you want to understand my viewpoint, in addition to the physics points I make, it is that: Theory is the problem of physics. The equations of physics need to be completed by finishing fundamental definitions and, what follows almost automatically from finishing the fundamental definitions, the equations need to be returned to their empirical forms. Their empirical forms are rid of empirically unsupported intrusions by theorists. I found that it is the case that returning the equations of physics back to their empirical forms leads immediately to a new physics. The new physics differs from current physics in that the new physics is founded upon definitions that are learned from empirical evidence. Current physics contains several definitions, or explanations, that are learned from what is imagined in the minds of theorists. When I ask the very important question: What is mass? I receive only theorists guesses. They are immediately recognizable because they are indirect answers. For example, when I ask "What is mass?" and receive an answer that it is energy; that is another circular definition. What is most difficult to convey about energy is that there is not one thimble full of energy anywhere in any laboratory. Energy is assigned a material existence by theorists. Energy is defined in terms of mass. How easy it is now to refer to the wonders of energy instead of a God. Energy is the new wonder drug of theoretical physics. 

Let us see what you think before moving further along. Thank you for your message.

What new possibilities do you feel are opened with definitions of these terms that fit your criterion? What would these answers enable?  

What physical event did Clausius discover when he wrote his mathematical expression for thermodynamic entropy? - ResearchGate. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_physical_event_did_Clausius_discover_when_he_wrote_his_mathematical_expression_for_thermodynamic_entropy#57ddc01bed99e1773c2b7671 [accessed Sep 17, 2016].

Word count should never be confused with content. Temperature, mass and entropy are extremely well defined in the various branches of physics. I was asking what it was you were planning to add to the standard definitions which would be of any use doing said physics? My guess based on your reply is none.   

Dear Paul,

I didn't realize that you do not know that mass is a fundamental indefinable property; temperature is a fundamental indefinable property. Thermodynamic entropy, the original entropy, discovered by Clausius has never been explained for what it is. If you are referring to indirect explanations such as it is disorder or unused energy or whatever you think is its definition, you are mistaken. Q/T is not explained because temperature is a fundamental indefinable property. Your guess is was incorrect. i am not adding feeble additions to the artificial "definitions" that I assume you are referring to. I gave you physics facts and you return with disbelief. Lets get this straight for the umpteenth time: Mass and temperature are historically and presently fundamental indefinable properties. There are no other definitions. Do you know how the rule for how to define physics properties? Here it is:

This indispensable physics lesson being no longer taught , I quote from:   

College Physics; Sears, Zemansky; 3rd ed.; 1960; Page 1, Chapter 1:

"1-1 The fundamental indefinables of mechanics. Physics has been called the science of measurement. To quote from Lord Kelvin (1824-1907), "I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcely, in your thoughts, advanced to the stage of Science, whatever the matter may be."

A definition of a quantity in physics must provide a set of rules for calculating it in terms of other quantities that can be measured.  Thus, when momentum is defined as the product of "mass" and "velocity," the rule for calculating momentum is contained within the  definition, and all that is necessary is to know how to measure mass and velocity. The definition of velocity is given in terms of length and time, but there are no simpler or more fundamental quantities in terms of which length and time may be  expressed. Length and time are two of the indefinables of mechanics. It has been found possible to express all the quantities of mechanics in terms of only three indefinables. The third may be taken to be "mass" or "force" with equal justification. We shall choose mass as the third indefinable of mechanics. 

In geometry, the fundamental indefinable is the "point." The geometer asks his disciple to build any picture of a point in his mind, provided the picture is consistent with what the geometer says about the point. In physics, the situation is not so subtle. Physicists from all over the world have international committees at whose meetings the rules of measurement of the indefinables are adopted. The rule for measuring an indefinable takes the place of a definition. ...

Chapter 15, page 286; 15-1:

To describe the equilibrium states of mechanical systems, as well as to study and predict the motions of rigid bodies and fluids, only three fundamental indefinables were needed: length, mass, and time. Every other physical quantity of importance in mechanics could be expressed in terms of these three indefinables., We come now, however, to a series of phenomena, called thermal effects or heat phenomena, which involve aspects that are essentially nonmechanical and which require for their description a fourth fundamental indefinable, the temperature. ... "

If this doesn't work for you, then I think you should go with your guess. 

What physical event did Clausius discover when he wrote his mathematical expression for thermodynamic entropy? - ResearchGate. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_physical_event_did_Clausius_discover_when_he_wrote_his_mathematical_expression_for_thermodynamic_entropy/1 [accessed Sep 17, 2016].

You type faster than I do.

Moving on: The equation f=ma in its unit form is newtons=kilograms(meters/second^2). After mass is defined and its units of kilograms are defined in empirical units, f=ma in unit form is Newtons=(meters/second^2)/(meters/second^2). The empirical units of Newtons reduce down to unity. The importance of this result is demonstrated in my paper "Calculating the Universal Gravitational Constant". It is an early lesson on what it is like to be working with fundamental unity.  

Dear Paul,

i have had this discussion with James previously. With all due respect to you both It is James not you who has a mistaken idea of fundamental physics. Temperature is perfectly definable as I tried to convince him but he seems to have his own fixed ideas.

Dwight,

What is the definition for temperature? 

Moving on: The empirical units for mass are those of inverse acceleration. Energy is defined as force multiplied by distance. The empirical units for force are those of acceleration/acceleration. Since they reduce to unity, the reduced form of units for energy are meters. The full units remain. but it is not always necessary to use them. The reduced units work most of the time while retaining clarity. When clarity needs improved, the full empirical units can be used. It is not difficult to move forward and find that the reduced empirical units for momentum are seconds. 

Two challenges lie ahead. One is to learn the empirical units for temperature. They are learned when temperature is defined in terms of its pre-existing units as has been the rule for centuries. The second challenge is to define electric charge. It is more challenging than defining temperature. The definition of temperature follows easily from the definition of mass. However, electric charge carries with it a universally constant magnitude. The definition of electric charge must explain the physical origin of its universal constant magnitude. That magnitude in mks units is 1.602x10-19 coulombs. Coulombs are the units of an undefined or, as has been the case historically, circularly defined electric charge. When electric charge is defined it will necessarily be accompanied by the definition of Coulombs in terms it pre-existing units. The use of pre-existing units in definitions is what guards, or would guard, physics from the tendency of even physicists to adopt laymen standards allowing for loose definitions. Loose definitions have no place in physics. They may occur in speech, but, it is definitely not technically acceptable for them to enter into physics equations. One last point, I use the mks system of units when I am not using empirical units. There are two reasons. One is because the proportionality constant in Coulomb's force equations must be found experimentally. The second is because readers more easily understand that I am working with meters, kilograms, and seconds.

Dear James,

This is my definition of temperature:

Temperature in physics is a parameter that appears in the physics discipline thermodynamics, which is a misnomer because the discipline focuses on equilibrium macroscopic systems and does not treat but in a cursory manner actual time-dependent dynamic systems and processes. "Macroscopic" means that the thermodynamic systems of concern are large compared to the characteristic size of quantum systems. Thermodynamically the macroscopic system contains internal energy U that is the sum of all of the energies of the system constituents. The macroscopic system has boundaries across which energy can flow but that do not permit the inward or outward transfer of matter. Temperature T is then a quantitative (measureable) but arbitrarily scaled parameter that is a measure of the energy “state” as encompassed in the total internal energy U of the system. It is a measure by which to label the internal energy state U of the system under conditions in which the system would be in “thermodynamic equilibrium” in which there is neither net inflow nor outflow of energy into or out of the system. Temperature therefore provides information regarding conditions within the system under equilibrium conditions.

Temperature couples with entropy S (please see my previous comment on thermodynamics), which is a quantitative description of the number of ways that  the internal energy U can be distributed among the constituents of the system. Temperature T indicates the state of the system; entropy indicates the construction of that state.

Temperature remains measurable in non-equilibrium systems as a localized, momentary measure of the energy state in the immediate surroundings of the measuring device (thermometer). Temperature has a minimum value attainable as a system approaches what, in essence, is its “ground-state” configuration of lowest internal energy. This point is set equal to zero on the Kelvin temperature scale. The unit of 1 kelvin is defined as 1/100 of the change recorded on a thermometer in an equilibrium system (bath) of water and ice at standard atmospheric conditions of pressure (1 atm) and a system of boiling water (bath) at 1 atm pressure. These are my definitions and may differ from SI standards.

Dear Dwight Hoxie, 

I asked what temperature is?!  You keep returning with your personal remarks about your correctness and my incorrect fixed ideas. Lets try to settle this matter of who gives direct responses, I will respond to this indirect response of yours.

DW: This is my definition of temperature:

DF: Temperature in physics is a parameter that appears in the physics discipline thermodynamics, which is a misnomer because the discipline focuses on equilibrium macroscopic systems and does not treat but in a cursory manner actual time-dependent dynamic systems and processes. "Macroscopic" means that the thermodynamic systems of concern are large compared to the characteristic size of quantum systems. ...

JP: You said that temperature is a parameter that appears in the physics discipline of thermodynamics. The rest deals with an opinion of the name and some of the content of thermodynamics.

DF: "Thermodynamically the macroscopic system contains internal energy U that is the sum of all of the energies of the system constituents. The macroscopic system has boundaries across which energy can flow but that do not permit the inward or outward transfer of matter. Temperature T is then a quantitative (measureable) but arbitrarily scaled parameter that is a measure of the energy “state” as encompassed in the total internal energy U of the system. ...

JP: What you mean to say is that temperature is proportional to  "...the energy “state” as encompassed in the total internal energy U of the system. ..." 

JP: The units of temperature are not Joules. Temperature is not energy. Temperature is proportional to energy. Force is proportional to acceleration. Proportionality is not equality! I asked: What is temperature? You tell me that it is something  that is proportional to energy. I didn't ask what is temperature proportional to? 

DF: " ... under conditions in which the system would be in “thermodynamic equilibrium” in which there is neither net inflow nor outflow of energy into or out of the system. Temperature therefore provides information regarding conditions within the system under equilibrium conditions.

JP:  A system in thermodynamic equilibrium has a constant temperature. Temperature in thermodynamics tells you that a system is in equilibrium. Nothing about what temperature is?!

DF: Temperature couples with entropy S (please see my previous comment on thermodynamics)  ... [You tell me what comment you are referring to.] ... , which is a quantitative description of the number of ways that the internal energy U can be distributed among the constituents of the system. ...

JP: You are not addressing Clausius' thermodynamic entropy! There are different definitions of entropy put forward. Please put a name on the one that you are addressing. Q/T does not describe the number of ways that the internal energy U can be distributed among the constituents of the system.  What is the meaning of Q/T?  

DF: Temperature T indicates the state of the system; entropy indicates the construction of that state.

JP: I have repeatedly made it clear that I address Clausius' thermodynamic entropy. It is the original mathematical expression of thermodynamic entropy. It is the original arrow of time. Explain the physical meaning of Q/T? Or, explain the meaning of dS=dQ/T. Correcting your statement: Temperature indicates that the system is in thermal equilibrium. What other information does it give you about the state of the system? How does Q/T indicate ' ...the construction of that state?" 

DF: Temperature remains measurable in non-equilibrium systems as a localized, momentary measure of the energy state in the immediate surroundings of the measuring device (thermometer). Temperature has a minimum value attainable as a system approaches what, in essence, is its “ground-state” configuration of lowest internal energy. This point is set equal to zero on the Kelvin temperature scale. The unit of 1 kelvin is defined as 1/100 of the change recorded on a thermometer in an equilibrium system (bath) of water and ice at standard atmospheric conditions of pressure (1 atm) and a system of boiling water (bath) at 1 atm pressure.

JP: You haven't defined temperature! What you are doing here is substituting its rule for measurement. That is what has been done historically when a property could not be defined. What is temperature? You offer a reading on a temperature scale instead of explaining what is it that is occurring at the surface of the submerged thermometer? 

JP: This is your perfect definition of what is temperature? You need to know then ahead of time, everyone will know what you or anyone else has defined temperature: They will know because you will have had to define the units of degrees. This is where substituting a rule for measurement will fail you. The definition of degrees must be made in terms of pre-existing units. If you think that is my fixed idea,  then please read back to the two times above that I quoted from Sears and Zemansky. 

JP: One correction to something I said above: Temperature is sometimes proportional to energy.

I do original research. For this part of my research, that quote from Sears and Zemansky explains that I am following tradition. My work is done and made public. Should any reader wonder about my direct answer for what is temperature, here is my definition of temperature: Temperature is the rate of exchange of energy between molecules. Degrees are defined as meters/second. No that is not a mistake. What it says is that the undefined units of degrees are replaced with empirical units that explain what temperature is. In order to understand meters/second it is necessary to read back to the empirical units for mass, in other words, how kilograms are defined. Beginning with the empirical units for mass, one must understand completed units and reduced units. For example, the complete units for force are (meters/second^2)/(meters/second^2). They reduce down to unity. My paper "Calculating the Universal Gravitational Constant" makes use of this result to show what it is like to be working with fundamental unity.

Dear James,

Below is my response that, I’m sure you won’t like, but here it is:

I admit that my definition of temperature is qualitative and illustrative of the concept and practical use of temperatura in physics, chemistry, etc. Let us stick with a simple system, say a box of molecules at a low enough density that we have an ideal gas. We consider the walls of the box to be impermeable with respect to the transfer of matter including the molecules in the box. Our laboratory and the box are at sea level in the tropics where the atmospheric pressure is 1 bar and the ambient temperature of the atmosphere outside of the box is 25 C. We allow the box to remain under these conditions for a long enough time so that the interior of the box attains thermal equilibrium with the external environment; there is no net inflow or outflow of energy (heat) into or out of the box. The internal energy U of the system (the box of molecules) is the sum of the kinetic energy, rotational energy, and vibrational energy of the molecules in the box which can change during collisions of the molecules that are in random “thermal” motion inside the box.

There are a myraid of ways that the internal energy U can be distributed  among the molecules and their quantum states within the box. One can develop a quantitative distribution (e.g., Boltzmann) function or a statistical matrix for this distribution of energy within the box wherein each such distribution is regarded as a state of the system. One then can calculate the probability that any one particular configuration, or state, will be realized, take the logarithm of the máximum of the resulting probability distribution and let this number be called “entropy”. In this way entropy is introduced as a measue of the expected mean of the ways that energy is distrbuted among the molecules and their quantum states. This is admittedly an ad hoc introduction to the concept of entropy. I do not know how Clausius arrived at his concept of entropy (to account for irreversible processes?) but quantum mechanics supports the approach schematically outlined here.

Now suppose that we add an increment dU of energy to the system. This increment will be distributed rapidly among the system’s constituents to créate a new distribution and an incremental increase of entropy dS because by adding energy we increase the number of states available in which to distribute that energy. So we have that the incremental change of entropy as a function of the incremental change of energy dS = f(dU). The simplest arrangement would be a linear proportionality such that dS = (∂S/∂U)dU and introduce a parameter called “temperature” T such that (arbitrarily at this point)  ∂S/∂U = 1/T. This gives rise to my statement “Temperature labels the state of a thermodynamic system and entropy is a measure of how energy is distributed within that state.” Note that dU in this scenario is received as a flow of heat dQ into the system under the constraint that there is neither a pressure increase in nor a volume change of the system.

I presume that you are not in accord with this approach as neither defining temperaturae nor addressing “Clausius’s entropy” but replacing it with a more comprehensive concept of “thermodynamic entropy”. This entropy, however, works well as one of the thermodynamic state variables and so does the task assigned to it. In this formalism entropy is dimensionless and the Stefan-Boltzman constant k is introduced as a conversión factor.

·  I asked what temperature is?!  You keep returning with your personal remarks about your correctness and my incorrect fixed ideas. Lets try to settle this matter of who gives direct responses, I will respond to this indirect response of yours.

DW: This is my definition of temperature:

DF: Temperature in physics is a parameter that appears in the physics discipline thermodynamics, which is a misnomer because the discipline focuses on equilibrium macroscopic systems and does not treat but in a cursory manner actual time-dependent dynamic systems and processes. "Macroscopic" means that the thermodynamic systems of concern are large compared to the characteristic size of quantum systems. ...

JP: You said that temperature is a parameter that appears in the physics discipline of thermodynamics. The rest deals with an opinion of the name and some of the content of thermodynamics.

DF: "Thermodynamically the macroscopic system contains internal energy U that is the sum of all of the energies of the system constituents. The macroscopic system has boundaries across which energy can flow but that do not permit the inward or outward transfer of matter. Temperature T is then a quantitative (measureable) but arbitrarily scaled parameter that is a measure of the energy “state” as encompassed in the total internal energy U of the system. ...

JP: What you mean to say is that temperature is proportional to  "...the energy “state” as encompassed in the total internal energy U of the system. ..." 

No, that is not at all what I mean to say.

JP: The units of temperature are not Joules. Temperature is not energy. Temperature is proportional to energy. Force is proportional to acceleration. Proportionality is not equality! I asked: What is temperature? You tell me that it is something  that is proportional to energy. I didn't ask what is temperature proportional to? 

The units of temperature are arbitrary and in science the unit of temperature is the kelvin.

DF: " ... under conditions in which the system would be in “thermodynamic equilibrium” in which there is neither net inflow nor outflow of energy into or out of the system. Temperature therefore provides information regarding conditions within the system under equilibrium conditions.

JP:  A system in thermodynamic equilibrium has a constant temperature. Temperature in thermodynamics tells you that a system is in equilibrium. Nothing about what temperature is?!

Temperature in thermodynamics tells you nothing about whether the system at temperature T is in thermal equilibrium or not. The temperature (average) at the surface of the sun is ~ 5500 K and is the temperature of a system far removed from thermal equilibrium.

DF: Temperature couples with entropy S (please see my previous comment on thermodynamics)  ... [You tell me what comment you are referring to.] ... , which is a quantitative description of the number of ways that the internal energy U can be distributed among the constituents of the system. ...

See discussion above.

JP: You are not addressing Clausius' thermodynamic entropy! There are different definitions of entropy put forward. Please put a name on the one that you are addressing. Q/T does not describe the number of ways that the internal energy U can be distributed among the constituents of the system.  What is the meaning of Q/T?  

DF: Temperature T indicates the state of the system; entropy indicates the construction of that state.

See discussion above.

JP: I have repeatedly made it clear that I address Clausius' thermodynamic entropy. It is the original mathematical expression of thermodynamic entropy. It is the original arrow of time. Explain the physical meaning of Q/T? Or, explain the meaning of dS=dQ/T. Correcting your statement: Temperature indicates that the system is in thermal equilibrium. What other information does it give you about the state of the system? How does Q/T indicate ' ...the construction of that state?" 

See discussion above.

DF: Temperature remains measurable in non-equilibrium systems as a localized, momentary measure of the energy state in the immediate surroundings of the measuring device (thermometer). Temperature has a minimum value attainable as a system approaches what, in essence, is its “ground-state” configuration of lowest internal energy. This point is set equal to zero on the Kelvin temperature scale. The unit of 1 kelvin is defined as 1/100 of the change recorded on a thermometer in an equilibrium system (bath) of water and ice at standard atmospheric conditions of pressure (1 atm) and a system of boiling water (bath) at 1 atm pressure.

JP: You haven't defined temperature! What you are doing here is substituting its rule for measurement. That is what has been done historically when a property could not be defined. What is temperature? You offer a reading on a temperature scale instead of explaining what is it that is occurring at the surface of the submerged thermometer? 

The molecules are colliding with the surface of the thermometer just as they are colliding with each other locally. In these collisions they exchange energy with the surface (and interior) of the thermometer and themselves until a steady-state (not an EQUILIBRIUM STATE!) exchange of energy between the thermometer and its local environment is established. The thermometer then records the (local) temperature.

JP: This is your perfect definition of what is temperature? You need to know then ahead of time, everyone will know what you or anyone else has defined temperature: They will know because you will have had to define the units of degrees. This is where substituting a rule for measurement will fail you. The definition of degrees must be made in terms of pre-existing units. If you think that is my fixed idea,  then please read back to the two times above that I quoted from Sears and Zemansky. 

No, there are no God-given units of anything in this Universe. Units are arbitrary and can be anything we like – furlongs, pints, feet, cubits as long as we use the units of choice consistently. To ensure consistency in thermodynamics we have introduced, for example, the Stefan-Boltzmann constant.

Yes I was introduced to physics via Sears and Zemansky – but their book ain’t no bible and they aren’t gods!

0 / 0 · 10 hours ago · Flag

· 

James Putnam · 2.60 · New Jersey Institute of Technology

JP: One correction to something I said above: Temperature is sometimes proportional to energy.

What physical event did Clausius discover when he wrote his mathematical expression for thermodynamic entropy? - ResearchGate. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_physical_event_did_Clausius_discover_when_he_wrote_his_mathematical_expression_for_thermodynamic_entropy#view=57df449ef7b67ef06a0c15ad [accessed Sep 19, 2016].

Dewight,

DW: I presume that you are not in accord with this approach as neither defining temperaturae nor addressing “Clausius’s entropy” but replacing it with a more comprehensive concept of “thermodynamic entropy”. This entropy, however, works well as one of the thermodynamic state variables and so does the task assigned to it. In this formalism entropy is dimensionless and the Stefan-Boltzman constant k is introduced as a conversión factor.

JP: I asked what Clausius discovered?  The kelvin temperature scale refutes your explanation as having nothing to do with thermodynamic entropy. You don't know what is Clausius' thermodynamic entropy because you don't know what temperature is.  

DW: 

JP: This is your perfect definition of what is temperature? You need to know then ahead of time, everyone will know what you or anyone else has defined temperature: They will know because you will have had to define the units of degrees. This is where substituting a rule for measurement will fail you. The definition of degrees must be made in terms of pre-existing units. If you think that is my fixed idea,  then please read back to the two times above that I quoted from Sears and Zemansky. 

DW: No, there are no God-given units of anything in this Universe. Units are arbitrary and can be anything we like – furlongs, pints, feet, cubits as long as we use the units of choice consistently. To ensure consistency in thermodynamics we have introduced, for example, the Stefan-Boltzmann constant.

DW: Yes I was introduced to physics via Sears and Zemansky – but their book ain’t no bible and they aren’t gods!

JP: They didn't invent the rule for defining properties and their units. The definition for degrees would not be arbitrary. What you are complaining about concerning God given units has nothing to do with defining units. You don't know what it means to define units. The units of newtons are presently defined units. The units of kilograms are not defined units. The units of degrees Kelvin are not defined units. The units of Joules are defined units. 

DW: The molecules are colliding with the surface of the thermometer just as they are colliding with each other locally. In these collisions they exchange energy with the surface (and interior) of the thermometer and themselves until a steady-state (not an EQUILIBRIUM STATE!) exchange of energy between the thermometer and its local environment is established. The thermometer then records the (local) temperature.

JP: Your last sentence fails to complete the answer to the question: What is temperature? What you describe is too easy. Great physicists over a couple of centuries left temperature as an indefinable property because what you describe is not an explanation of what temperature is. Something is missing. No I won't explain the difference. You push the idea that you know more than I as if I am being foolish while you throw things up against the wall to see if they will stick. It is apparent to me that you like the very things that I find fault with in physics. I will be continuing to expose the lack of connection of today's loose and empirically unsound theoretical physics with yesterday's straight-forward rules and demands for proofs upon proofs. When theoretical physicists joined support for space-time, they separated themselves from tradition. You like projectionism. My view is it is obviously not physics. I will be continuing to rely upon direct dependence upon empirical evidence to repair today's loose physics. Before I get bombarded with claims of evidences of today's physics, I leave this discussion with the observation that the evidences of today's physics are often not evidences at all such as the evidences for space-time or  the evidences for additional dimensions. There are no evidences for space-time and there are no evidences for additional dimensions.  

Thanks for your response and I wish you well in your universe of your own creation, whatever it be, wherever it be. I'll just stick with the one in which I find myself and let it do its thing and go with flow - over the hill to Grandmother's house and perhaps beyond!

Dwight,

Sorry it couldn't have been better between us. You still stick with the problem being my failings. 

What is obvious even before theory begins to enter physics equations is that there is one cause for all effects. Since the general subject concerns physics, the cause must be interpreted as a mechanical cause because the effects of physics are interpreted as mechanical effects: Photons deliver push or pull effects. Therefore, amending the introductory statement: What is mechanically interpreted as obvious is that there is one cause for all mechanical effects. The basis for this conclusion is that the universe operates in an orderly manner. Being orderly does not refer to 'good' or 'bad' results from our human perspective. Rather it refers to the continued successful operation of the universe. Any disorder introduced into the orderly operation of the universe would destroy order. We are here because the universe is continuing to operate in an orderly manner.

The purpose of this message is to convey that there are no separate fundamental forces. All 'appearances' of 'separate' causes are due to effects reflecting different aspects of a single cause.  When the equations of physics take their lead from empirical evidence, this is  both possible and has been done by the author, rather than theorists' imaginations, the equations show fundamental unity right from their beginnings and it continues on into higher level equations.

Unity is not an afterthought that can be added on to theory after theory is completed. Theory that does not display fundamental unity right from its start, is not informing us about the nature of this universe. Such theories are made up. They reflect imagination. They are immediately identifiable by their embrace of fundamental disunity. The early evidence  of fundamental disunity is the adoption of properties that are inferred to exist by empirical evidence but are not defined in the same terms as their empirical evidence is expressed. The first such property is mass. The second is temperature. These two are both historically recognized fundamentally indefinable properties. The third is not recognized as such, but the circular definition of electric charge reveals it as a third property that lacks a definition. 

The history of theoretical physics contains the practice of offering 'definitions' of properties that are not expressed in the same terms as is their empirical evidence. Rather, the so called 'definitions' are entered into physics equations as representing properties that lack a history. Those 'definitions' begin the existence of those properties. They are the added on miracles imposed upon physics equations by theoretical physicists. There can be only one admitted miracle for physics. The cause of this universe that has given birth to human free will is the only inexplicable 'miracle' that physics can tolerate and remain scientific.