On Jul 16, 8:21 am, "Tim Golden BandTech.com" <tttppp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I'm not a firm believer inentropyfrom a thermodynamic point of view > because I am not a believer in the thermodynamic interpretation as > vibrating atoms. Thermodynamics is not a theory of atoms. Thermodynamics is a macroscopic theory. Statistical theory says that thermodynamic quantities are the statistical averages of atomic quantities. Although not generally taught that way, thermodynamics is entirely self consistent even without atoms and without statistics. Most progress in thermodynamics was made before Boltzmann developed a statistical theory. In fact, most thermodynamic theory is consistent with the caloric theory as postulated by Boltzmann. Gibbs came up with an formal, self consistent description of thermodynamics that didn't involve atoms. Most of thermodynamics can be visualized by imagining that entropy is an indestructible fluid. Temperature is a quantity proportional to the pressure this fluid can exert. One can think of entropy as analogous to electric charge, and temperature as analogous to voltage. I think this is what Carnot was visualizing when he wrote his monograph where he introduced the Carnot cycle. Perhaps you mean the following: "I am not a firm believer in a thermodynamic view because I am not a believer in the statistical interpretation of vibrating atoms. I like the idea of entropy as a fluid better than the idea of entropy as disorder." Although I have respect for statistical mechanics, maybe it is time to think of entropy as an indestructible fluid. Maybe there is a way to modify this "indestructible fluid" that provides a better model for cosmology !-)
