Preface Page 3
We scoff at some of the lunacies of our 17th, 18th and perhaps even 19th century predecessors. For example the
concept of heat/fire being a particle i.e. pholgiston, is today likened to the art of bloodletting. Seemingly humanity has come a
long way in the last few hundred years, or has it? One may rightfully argue that our minds are less than open
at any other point in
our history. This website is an investigation into why thermodynamics is a poorly conceived science.
Certainly the powers in
charge remain indignant to any notion of their science is not a first rate composition. Specifically, the indignity that one may be
part of complicating the simple will feel too perverse to most of the indoctrinated. As Tolstoy quote points out (see RHS), human
nature prevents the vast majority of us from questioning any elevated path that we have walked, especially once we have been
bestowed with the applause of others.
Understandably, experts will adhere to their complicated circular arguments thus confusing
both their critics while fooling themselves. And of course there is the retribution whereby the powers in charge
threaten peoples very livelihood just to save face . A prime example being what happened to Paul Marmet (a proff at Ottawa University).
Just consider “entropy”. A term that is used in almost every realm of the sciences, yet it remains the thermodynamic parameter
that lacks any real clarity. Consider Shannon’s information, wherein the word entropy was chosen over the word "information", in part
beacause of this statement: "You should call it entropy for two reasons, in the first place your uncertainty function has
been used in statistical mechanics under that name so it already has a name. In the second place but more important, nobody
knows what entropy is, so in a debate you will always have the advantage" [(John von Neumann's statement to Claude
Shannon) Wikipedia "history of entropy" July 2017]
von Neumann's word could be taken as joke, but the sad reality is it
is serious science. It clearly shows that entropy remains a mathematical contrivance without any clarity to its meaning.
Sure such contrivances are used all the time but to have it as a fundamental cornerstone of a science is walking a rather
dangerous path, especially after 150 plus yrs of use. Not to mention: Have you ever tried arguing against an illogical concept
that behold no real meaning? I liken it to fishing on a moonless night and not knowing where the lake is. Sure your casts
may be great, but so what when the lake is not where you thought, and your lure is left hung up in tree. Obviously von Neumann knew
what he was saying.
To belittle entropy is demeaning to anyone who does research wherein the term is used. I once exchanged
emails with someone studying entropy production in chemical reactions. It all sounds great until a 5 yr old asks what does entropy
mean? Sure the researcher can deduce a convoluted answer that will leave any 5 yr old completely baffled, but what is the researcher
really saying. When I once told the researcher that for the most part entropy is a complication of the simple, and that generally
its production can be associated with the work lost by expanding systems displacing our atmosphere's mass, well that certainly ended
our emails. Perhaps the indignity of the idea that his research was belittled hurts too much. Perhaps his computer failed and he is
back to the pen and paper world. I really do not know what the real answer is.
Sure the powers at hand will argue that what they say
is backed by indisputable empirical data. Onto you, I state that such results/data is not in dispute. However there are rules
concerning experimental results.
Rule 1: Experimental results can only disprove a given theory. Least we forget that numerous theories
can readily explain a given indisputable result. Accordingly, when two or more theories equally explain a result then one must apply
Occam's razor rather than adhere to some pet theory, irrelevant of whether or not that a theory is indoctrinated into our souls.
To do otherwise is not to behold a clear unbiased scientific mind.
Rule 2: Experimental results can be misconstrued due to the
way the experiment is set up. Consider the vast majority of experiments on dilute gases. Herein, closed systems are used to contain
the dilute gases. What scientists have forgotten to ask is this. How does this affect our results? It turns out that the fact that
dilute gas molecules do interact with the walls more often than with each other is part of the reason that certain experimental results
occur and that traditional thermodynamics is written the way it is.
Of interest: There are arguments that claim the second law does
not apply at the quantum level. I am not an expert but I cannot help but wonder if this is not simply a case that the dynamics of
the atmosphere are not changed at such a microscopic level i.e no lost work.
Also, if we remove the walls then
closed systems become completely open ones. At which point the ideal gas law, Avogadro’s hypothesis, kinetic theory, Maxwell’s velocities
etc etc all somewhat lose their validity. (see my blogs on “walls” and “kinetic theory”). In part this explains why traditional thermodynamics
does not apply to cosmology. I.e. results from experiments on gases in closed systems may be limited to closed systems. This is not
to say that once we open a closed system of gas, that everything changes at that instant. Rather over time, once the walls are removed
then gas molecules will collide with other gas molecules exchanging both their energies and momentums. And as this process occurs,
the dynamics of the gases will slowly be altered. (reference My paper on kinetic theory published in 2017 and 2018 see papers)
above is really an elaboration of experiments on high density gases wherein the gases will interact with each other more often than
with the closed system’s walls. Herein the ideal gas law, Avogadro’s hypothesis, kinetic theory, Maxwell’s velocities etc also all
no longer apply.
Rule 3: When seeking an empirical result, or trying to explain an empirical result, do not allow your pet theories
to interfere with your logic. Doing so may blind you of reality. Or even cause you to adhere to circular logic, something our 19th
and early 20th century greats certainly did concerning entropy, the second law and lost work. And yes current thermodynamic theory
is riddled with circular results based upon circular self-serving thought processes.
This website is now dedicated to elaborating
upon why traditional thermodynamics is a complication of the simple, and how to then begin the discussion of how we can improve upon
it. Plus the hope of selling a copy or two of my book. A new revised edition should hopefully be out in 2017.
The quote that will
always egg me on, and hopefully will be egg in the face to Eddington’s reputation: "The law that entropy always increases, holds,
I think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature. If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement
with Maxwell's equations — then so much the worse for Maxwell's equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation — well,
these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can
give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation
By Kent W. Mayhew
In order to appreciate why I say current thermodynamics is a complication of the simple please visit blogs/discussions page
where I discuss diverse topics all concerning thermodyanmics
demonstrating that the science clearly requires a
Sommerfield quote:"Thermodynamics is a funny subject. The first time you go through it, you don't understand it at all. The second time you go through it, you think you understand it, except for one or two small points. The third time you go through it, you know you don't understand it, but by that time you are so used to it, so it doesn't bother you any more."
Tolstoy Quote: “I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth, if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives
This website is copyright of Kent W. Mayhew who in 2017 resides in Ottawa Ontario Canada
This website is full of new
ideas, which are the property of Kent.
Furthermore you are free to share, copy or distribute
in any manner that you feel is warranted, so long as you fully respectfully reference the author (Kent W. Mayhew) in a manner
that you deem fit.