Sign in or 
Location: Encyclopedia of Humanthermodynamics Discussion Forum
Discussion: Entropy in 20th Century Chemistry Texts
Category:
Discussion Forum /
General Discussion
Share this|
Posted Anonymously |
Entropy in 20th Century Chemistry Texts
Sep 20 2009, 2:28 PM EDT
Entropy in most first-year US chemistry texts before 2000 was defined as related to a change in order to disorder. The concept was due to Boltzmann’s naïve statements: “...all or at least most of the parts of [the world] surrounding us are initially in a very ordered...state....[then, in interactions/reactions, the system] rapidly proceeds to the disordered ...state.” (See complete details at entropysite.oxy.edu/Boltzmann.html).The obvious error is that today we know that _all_ molecular systems of more than a few particles above 0 K are “disordered” in their ‘dancing’ from microstate to equi-energy microstate of numbers beyond human comprehension – even though they are easily manipulated mathematically. The order we see in ice vs. water is superficial so far as the number of energetic microstates in each phase is considered. [Thims citation of Planck as the source is incorrect so far as chemistry is concerned. Planck only referred to radiation, not chemical interactions. Likewise, Schrodinger (who proves that geniuses can be literally stupid by his mystically describing food, our metabolic energy source, as “negentropy”) is no independent authority because he merely cites Boltzmann’s naïve statement.] Thims has courteously stated that his chemistry text, Ebbing, in 1990 and another fine text by Chang, in 1998 defined entropy as disorder. So, both Thims and I and all students/profs in the 20th century were brainwashed into accepting the 1898 error “... parts of the world surrounding us...that react...are initially in an ordered state...”. (And Thims castigates me for being so foolish as to use that order-disorder analogy in writing several articles before he was born, and then for living so long before I was able to describe the fundamental nature of entropy!) Do you find this valuable? |
|
Posted Anonymously |
1. RE: Entropy in 20th Century Chemistry Texts
Sep 20 2009, 2:33 PM EDT
Now, check 21st century texts: Ebbing and Gammon’s 7th edition (2002) continues the 1990 theme of Thims’ text: “Entropy, S, is a thermodynamic quantity that is a measure of the randomness or disorder in a system.” But the 8th edition (2005) says “Entropy, S, is a thermodynamic quantity that is a measure of how dispersed the energy of a system is among the different possible ways that system can contain energy. ...the entropy (energy dispersal) of a system plus its surrounding increases in a spontaneous process.” Chang, in his 9th edition (2007) writes “Entropy (S) is often described as a measure of the randomness or disorder of a system. The greater the disorder of a system, the greater its entropy.” (He goes on to give an “illustration” of order and disorder by describing a new deck of cards compared to one that has been shuffled.) Now, read the radical change in his 10th edition (2010): “Entropy (S) is often described as a measure of how spread out or dispersed the energy of a system is among the different possible ways that system can contain energy. “ ! ! (There is no mention of shuffled cards in the chapter.) This total change from the last century to adopting my approach to the meaning of entropy in chemistry is shown in 21 texts that are listed with their ISBN numbers in the “May 2009” section of http://entropysite.oxy.edu. Entropy change is a measure of how much and how widely energy in a process is spread out in space and within each of the accessible microstates of a macrostate that we call a system (or system plus surroundings). Any association with order or disorder is so superficial as to be dismissible. Frank L. Lambert Professor Emeritus Occidental College Los Angeles, CA 90041 1 out of 1 found this valuable. Do you? |
Sadi-Carnot |
2. RE: Thanks:
Sep 20 2009, 10:20 PM EDT
| Post edited: Sep 20 2009, 10:53 PM EDT
Frank, thanks for the comments. Entropy, as you know, was not formulated by Boltzmann nor Kelvin, but but Clausius. If you are going to do any more 'correcting' to chemistry texts, I suggest you read Clausius, and suggest to those authors the original Clausius definition of entropy, not secondary verbalizations, that are essentially baseless. Also, what makes you so sure that you aren't substituting one form of brainwashing for another?
Do you find this valuable?
|
|
Petrologist |
3. RE: Thanks:
Sep 21 2009, 11:59 PM EDT
Msr Carnot,' I suggest you read Clausius, and suggest to those authors the original Clausius definition of entropy, not secondary verbalizations, that are essentially baseless. Also, what makes you so sure that you aren't substituting one form of brainwashing for another? ' Where can one not get 'secondary verbalizations that are essentially baseless' ? Oh, you mean by using your book! Or, use the definition that created the problem in the first place. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_(energy_dispersal) Because you had some trouble with Carnot's cycle, let me sketch what I think is the problem Prof Lambert is fixing. He may correct me. Though I studied Prigogine's non-equilbrium theories, my research is in equilibrium thermodynamics. (Yes, you can laugh now.) Entropy, to me, is how, say, Gibbs Energy drops off as thermodynamic temperatures does (at constant pressure). It never had anything to do with 'chaos', for I preferred Clausius's 'uncompensated heat' to Prigogine's internal entropy production. Non-equilibrium 'temperature' isn't the problem, for an inefficient Carnot cycle can take care of that. I need the symmetry of the Gibbs & Gibbs-Duhem equation: Magma, magma burning bright, At the depths of choice thy might; Who can use group theory, To frame thy fearful symmetry? So, Prof Lambert's remarks about the playing cards came as a shock. (Perhaps not, if one threw them into a furnace :-) Though I hadn't read Prof Lambert's description of entropy, I find it very clever; and it catches my traditional picture. Fortunately perhaps, I never read any newer text on thermodynamics. My books were Fermi, Lewis & Randall (1st ed), Guggenheim, Epstein, Duhem, Gibbs, & Prigogine & Defay. These secondary verbaliations might have satisfied you. Do you find this valuable? |
|
Sadi-Carnot |
4. RE:
Sep 22 2009, 12:40 AM EDT
| Post edited: Sep 22 2009, 12:45 AM EDT
The issues with Lambert's energy dispersal entropy theory have been beat to death on the Wikipedia talk pages, such as found on those linked to the following:http://www.eoht.info/page/Energy+dispersal Also, I think I found a picture of Frank on the cover of Harold Morowitz’ 1992 book Entropy and the Magic Flute: http://www.eoht.info/page/Entropy+formulations Do you find this valuable? |
|
Sadi-Carnot |
5. To Petrologist:
Sep 22 2009, 2:12 AM EDT
| Post edited: Sep 22 2009, 2:14 AM EDT
Bruce, also regarding your suggestion that my 824-page textbook, Human Chemistry (which you have never read), is filled with baseless secondary verbalizations, I would suggest to you to either put up or shut up. If you think you can explain the chemistry or thermodynamics of human existence better than I have done, thus far, then let’s hear it? You type up your stellar theory (article, book, or textbook), and we’ll publish it the Journal of Human Thermodynamics (or whatever journal or book publisher you want), I’ll read it and critique it, and then we can all debate your excellent views (which you seem to claim are better then mine), in the threads? To cite an example, Indian chemist Surya Pati: http://www.eoht.info/page/Surya+Pati is currently finishing his upcoming article for the Journal of Human Thermodynamics on the application of human thermodynamics (and human chemistry) in understanding management problems in business organizations, theories which he plans to use in his future work in business management. As we see, some of us, instead of trash talking on the sidelines, are actually getting into the game, and working on this difficult topic, for the betterment of humankind. Do you find this valuable? |
|
Sadi-Carnot |
6. RE: George Wolfe (biochemistry/thermodynamics video):
Sep 22 2009, 2:54 AM EDT
It looks like professor George Wolfe didn't get your memo Frank:http://www.5min.com/Video/Bioenergetics-The-Laws-of-Thermodynamics-150615717 You'd better send him an email to correct him. Do you find this valuable? |
|
Petrologist |
7. RE: To Petrologist:
Sep 22 2009, 2:53 PM EDT
Msr Carnot,My letter above was posted because, though I had previously considered Prof Lambert's description of entropy to be the same as Boltzmann's, only now did I realize the misunderstandings it addressed. Prof Lambert's description lessens these and is worthy of thought. Each of my posts had, I hope, content for all. If you wish, I shall shut up; though I claim no 'stellar theory'. I'm not competant to say anything of humans except my advice here. Attack those posts that are inappropriate, not appropriate ones. (An earlier one of Prof Lambert's, IMO, was outrageous.) Apologize when due. Three aspects of your research have been criticized: (1) the claim of scientism, (2) the claims of pseudoscience, and (3) the claim of a few ethical 'faux pas'. Scientism, extending science beyond its domain (into religion, for example) does not diminish the value of your theorems. Pseudoscience (which should have no derrogatory connotation) does diminish the value of some theorems, but not all. Any claim of dishonesty is devastating, for scientists can't spend the time on each publication that they might when reviewing a student's dissertation. Your misquote of me above (of my humor that apparently failed) is, I believe, an accident. However, your misquoting me on religion was not, and I could not abide it. That is the only emotional disagreement we have, and I've yet to receive an apology (despite all my little hints). Remember, three of four people found significant problems, not a single gang of four. My only advice is to lighten up, and to show respect for one's elders, even when it is not due. :-) Bruce Bathurst, PhD Simple Geologist PS. Ignoring honest queries is a red flag of 'pseudoscience'. My advice is to either address these honestly, or admit the need to study the topic more. Do you find this valuable? |
|
Sadi-Carnot |
8. RE: To Petrologist:
Sep 22 2009, 8:26 PM EDT
| Post edited: Sep 22 2009, 8:52 PM EDT
Thanks for the suggestions. Regarding apology, I don't know what exactly I am supposed to apologize for? The fact that you brought up the issue of soul and god, clearly indicates that the issue is on your mind. I simply pointed that out, not to be a derogation of you, but to acknowledge that the question/issue exists, for many.Regarding my comments to Lambert, my gripes with him go back several years, to several month long discussions and emails on Wikipedia, where he derogated me numerous times. The entire premise of his theory is pure entropology: http://www.eoht.info/page/Entropology Or verbal thermodynamics, without equations. Regarding: admit the need to study the topic more, why do you think I am writing this encyclopedia? Some issues, however, are so blatantly incorrect, that they need immediate correction. When a professor of thermal physics, for example, goes on video and tells everyone that entropy only apples to gas molecules, and that you can’t apply entropy to systems of humans, one has to wonder where our educational system has gone wrong over the last 150-years? To say that entropy (heat flow) doesn’t apply to arrangements of humans is like saying that when I touch my hand on a hot stove, I won’t get burned. Later, Libb Do you find this valuable? |
|
Posted Anonymously |
9. More misrepresentation.
Sep 23 2009, 4:39 AM EDT
"When a professor of thermal physics, for example, goes on video and tells everyone that entropy only apples to gas molecules...The following comment was posted a number of days ago under the entropy YouTube video to which you refer. You are well aware of this because you have received this comment via YouTube: "@HumanChemistry101 (aka Sadi-Carnot/Libb Thims): Libb, given that you've also stated at your Wiki that I said "Concepts of entropy [only] apply to gas molecules", I came back to check (because I was very surprised that I would say that). In fact, nowhere do I suggest that the concept of entropy *only* applies to gas molecules - it is solely your misinterpretation that has led you to include "[only]" in the quote." What was it that the WIkipedia editors said before they banned you?: "Over the past two years Sadi Carnot has undertaken a campaign to spam his personal website and push his own fringe theories across a wide variety of articles. In the process, he has subtly vandalized many articles by inserting pseudoscience and by ***misrepresenting sources*** [Emphasis mine]." Moreover, that you can't see the difference between your nonsensical human thermodynamics and the entirely valid physics underlying the transfer of heat from a hot stove to someone's hand no longer surprises me. You simply won't make the effort to read introductory level physics textbooks, so why should I take the time to keep correcting you? Please, however, do me the courtesy of *not* misrepresenting what I've said. (Moreover, your breaches of scientific ethics are entirely deliberate and therefore not merely "faux-pas" (Comment #7). Philip Moriarty Do you find this valuable? |
|
Posted Anonymously |
10. Another misrepresentation
Sep 23 2009, 8:30 AM EDT
"Yet another misrepresentation. Check out E. Kozliak and FL Lambert, Entropy 10 274 (2008). It's an open access journal and so the paper is freely available at: http://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/10/3/274/pdf . Another important and well-written paper on the subject of the energy dispersal interpretation of entropy is that of HS Leff - Found. Phys. 37 1744 (2007). And, by the way, on the subject of differential quantities (given that you quite correctly point out their importance in thermodynamics), you need to be rather more careful in defining what is an exact and inexact differential. You might also like to explain what you mean by "where the "circle integral" means that we integrate the surface of the working substance..." in your definition of the Clausius inequality (http://www.eoht.info/page/Clausius+inequality). And think very carefully about whether the T in the Clausius inequality always represents the temperature of the working substance (as you suggest on your webpage). In answering these questions, it'd be helpful if you moved beyond the 17th - 19th centuries and addressed them on the basis of the 21st century understanding of thermodynamics. Some maths would be helpful as well. However, given that when you clearly did not understand the point I was making about, for example, the Carnot cycle in the Thims-Moriarty-debate thread, you instead trotted out a history of the concept, I suspect that, yet again, I'll be given a set of definitions you've copied out of your textbooks. Philip Moriarty Do you find this valuable? |
|
Sadi-Carnot |
11. Re: Word-for-word video comment:
Sep 23 2009, 12:03 PM EDT
Phil, curious to see you back here? Certainly do not take anything personal, this is an issue that exists at large in the scientific community: Your 2009 video word-for-word comment: “You cannot say that a particular arrangement of students has a thermodynamic entropy”; is equivalent to American physical chemist John Wojcik’s 2006 comment: “Worst of all, there is some danger that chemical thermodynamics will have ascribed to it a power that it simply does not have, namely, the power to explain the human condition”; which is equivalent to American economist Paul Samuelson’s 1972 comment: "The sign of a half-baked speculator in the social sciences is his search for something in the social system that corresponds to the physicist's notion of entropy"; which is equivalent to German author Christoph Wieland’s 1810 comment: "To all rational readers, the use of the chemical theory is nonsense and childish fooling around", regarding Goethe’s premise that humans are chemical species and that love relationships are a pure chemical reactions pre-determined via measurable chemical affinity forces or Gibbs free energy changes. From the average chemical engineer’s perspective (to cite one example): http://www.eoht.info/page/Andrew+Morrow all of these objections are completely and absolutely incorrect. It is difficult even to put into words how incorrect these views are. I can’t believe that someone, in this modern age, can be born into this world and not presented with the chemical thermodynamic view of existence. It’s a shame that we have to be forced through the grinder only to have to learn this philosophy on our own, many years after our formal education. Do you find this valuable? |
|
Sadi-Carnot |
12. Re: Wikipedia
Sep 23 2009, 12:04 PM EDT
Regarding your repeated inquires about my background, as you will see, my Wikipedia account is in good standing:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sadi_Carnot If you’ve ever edited in Wikipedia for more than a year, you will find that anyone with more than an ounce of opinion on any given subject, will be in for a tenuous ride. My breaking point reached, where after I voluntarily left (being banned for one year, two months after I left), after experiencing huge resistance to write basic articles on: the human molecule, human chemistry, and human thermodynamics. These three topics are very personal to me. I’m sure that if you were the editor of this wiki, you would ban me to? Do you find this valuable? |
|
Sadi-Carnot |
13. Re: your assertions that I don’t understand physics or thermodynamics:
Sep 23 2009, 12:04 PM EDT
To tell someone who has a personal collection of near to 250 thermodynamics books and has written an 1,100+ online encyclopedia of thermodynamics, in their spare time for fun, that they have no understanding of basic thermodynamics, is like telling a chicken that he doesn’t know how to peck at the ground. If you have a specific question (or suggested correction), please ask it directly. If not, to be clear: I’m getting rather tired of your repeated and derogative assertions (e.g. that I copy my answers to you out of a textbook, etc.). Do you find this valuable? |
|
Sadi-Carnot |
14. Re-statement:
Sep 23 2009, 12:22 PM EDT
I’ll put it to you like this: if you don’t think that chemical thermodynamics has the power to explain why we’re here and what moves us, then there’s plenty of other points of view to give you comfort, e.g. the Bible.
Do you find this valuable?
|
|
Sadi-Carnot |
15. Re: 19th century view versus 20th century view
Sep 23 2009, 12:44 PM EDT
Regarding this comment: “it'd be helpful if you moved beyond the 17th - 19th centuries and addressed them on the basis of the 21st century understanding of thermodynamics.” I’m going to address this comment to researchers (who may happen to read this tread) interested in understanding the thermodynamics of human existence (or, for that matter, any new application of thermodynamics). To have a pure untainted understanding of thermodynamics one must master Clausius, then Gibbs. Of all the books ever published in science, in the parting words of Einstein, Clausius’ 1875 textbook The Mechanical Theory of Heat, “is the only physical theory of universal content that will never be overthrown.” All of the schools of thermodynamics were built on this textbook:http://www.eoht.info/page/Schools+of+thermodynamics Mastering Clausius (and Gibbs), however, is easier said than done. Do you find this valuable? |
|
Posted Anonymously |
16. RE: Re: your assertions that I don’t understand physics or thermodynamics:
Sep 23 2009, 12:44 PM EDT
"To tell someone who has a personal collection of near to 250 thermodynamics books and has written an 1,100+ online encyclopedia of thermodynamics, in their spare time for fun, that they have no understanding of basic thermodynamics, is like telling a chicken that he doesn’t know how to peck at the ground. .... If you have a specific question (or suggested correction), please ask it directly. "You just don't get it, do you? *Anyone* can write a self-published "textbook" which has no scientific basis. It's easy! As I told LynnLiss back in the "debate" thread, I can put forward any number of ludicrous "theories" which do not connect with experiment or observation. I gave her one example - the "Micro-bagel" theory of human interactions - which is **just as valid** as your human thermodynamics "theory". That you can't appreciate why this is the case, means you simply don't grasp the scientific method. I have asked you very many specific questions. You've dodged the vast majority of them. Those that you've "addressed" have always been from an historical perspective, rather than in terms of the maths or physics. So, let's start with the fundamentals: (i) Why do we not see macroscopic examples of quantum mechanics - interference/tunnelling etc... - if, as you say, human interactions are due to the formation of quantum-mechanical bonds between individuals? [I've asked this before]. (ii) Why is the Carnot cycle an idealisation? Why can it never exist in the real world? **Address the question with physics and maths** - I don't want yet another history lesson. (iii) You've even evaded my questions *in this thread*!!! How about answering the questions in #10 above re. the Clausius inequality. How much more specific do you want me to be? Deal with those first, please. Philip Moriarty Do you find this valuable? |
|
Posted Anonymously |
17. RE: Re-statement:
Sep 23 2009, 12:47 PM EDT
"I’ll put it to you like this: if you don’t think that chemical thermodynamics has the power to explain why we’re here and what moves us, then there’s plenty of other points of view to give you comfort, e.g. the Bible."From the e-mail I sent you some time ago, you know how much I dislike the groundless accusation that my views are somehow religiously motivated. You also know my views about the mythology of religion. So, ignoring that, you trot out this tedious ccusation again. You seem to use this baseless approach any time you get criticised - see your discussion with Petrologist on the "Why I am not a molecule" thread. Philip Moriarty (www.nottingham.ac.uk/physics/research/nano) Do you find this valuable? |
|
Posted Anonymously |
18. RE: Re: Word-for-word video comment:
Sep 23 2009, 12:55 PM EDT
"Yep, I **entirely** agree with each one of the quotes you list above. As do the vast majority of all scientists. The number of researchers who support your concept of human thermodynamics is a vanishingly small percentage of the total number of scientists in the world. Ask yourself why. (Oh, and no, it's not because your theory is so ground-breaking and revolutionary that they cannot appreciate its implications. Nor is it because we all lack your vision and intellectual prowess. Try again.) And as regards "Curious to see you back here?", as long as you keep misrepresenting my views and those of others, I will continue to correct you. Philip Moriarty (www.nottingham.ac.uk/physics/research/nano) Do you find this valuable? |
|
Posted Anonymously |
19. RE: Re: Wikipedia
Sep 23 2009, 12:57 PM EDT
"If you’ve ever edited in Wikipedia for more than a year, you will find that anyone with more than an ounce of opinion on any given subject, will be in for a tenuous ride. My breaking point reached, where after I voluntarily left (being banned for one year, two months after I left), after experiencing huge resistance to write basic articles on: the human molecule, human chemistry, and human thermodynamics. These three topics are very personal to me. I’m sure that if you were the editor of this wiki, you would ban me to [sic]?And why do you think you met with "huge resistance" to inserting articles on human molecule/human chemistry/human thermodynamics. If I were to try to get my pet theory of energy hoop(micro-bagel)-mediated human interactions into Wikipedia, I would very much hope that I also would meet with huge resistance. Philip Moriarty (www.nottingham.ac.uk/physics/research/nano) Do you find this valuable? |
