Content deleted Content added
Chjoaygame (talk | contribs) →cards on the table: the second law |
|||
Line 789:
::::If I can prevail upon you to consider things from the point of view that I have just set out, I hope that you may allow that my idea of 'equilibrium trajectories' will do instead of your ideas such as of 'non-equilibrium points' in an equilibrium state. I think the point of view that I have just set out is physically intuitive, simple, and logically valid. I think that if we assume it, we can write a simpler and more naïvely comprehensible article. I think that the point of view that I have just set out is the one taken by pure mathematicians. I accept that it is unfamiliar to academically trained physicists, who perhaps may even find it idiosyncratic or out there. An advantage of this point of view is that the thermodynamic entropy of an equilibrium state of an isolated system is a fixed constant, and so that the second law is true without probabilistic modification.[[User:Chjoaygame|Chjoaygame]] ([[User talk:Chjoaygame|talk]]) 09:33, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
:::::Ok, lets do this step by step to find out the point of disagreement.
:::::* Do you agree that the second law of thermodynamics in effect states that entropy will never decrease?
:::::* Do you agree that for an isolated finite system, entropy fluctuations cannot be eliminated? (Due to Poincare recurrence). If you disagree, please outline a practical finite system in which entropy is without fluctuation.
:::::* Do you agree that for a system with entropy fluctuations, some will constitute a decrease in entropy and will therefore be, strictly speaking, in violation of the second law?
:::::* Can you outline a method of calculating the entropy of a microstate?
:::::[[User:PAR|PAR]] ([[User talk:PAR|talk]]) 15:44, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
== Outstanding questions ==
| |||