Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics: Obviously False

Newsgroups	sci.physics
Date	2016-09-23 08:43 -0700
References	(2 earlier) <nrjvb4$3ah$1@dont-email.me> <e1a8b6c8-1410-40ef-8647-e4045b191400@googlegroups.com> <ns1bsu$nma$1@dont-email.me> <8886cfa0-10e3-46f9-9be8-6f4a6a1ac900@googlegroups.com> <ns2jsc$2qk$1@dont-email.me>
Message-ID	<4de0aa2a-9ce4-45b2-a518-e0418aeb1249@googlegroups.com> (permalink)
Subject	Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics: Obviously False
From	"Tim BandTech.com" <timgolden@bandtechnology.com>

Show all headers | View raw

On Friday, September 23, 2016 at 2:59:37 AM UTC-4, Poutnik Fornntp wrote:
> Dne 23/09/2016 v 05:55 Tim BandTech.com napsal(a):
> > On Thursday, September 22, 2016 at 3:37:15 PM UTC-4, Poutnik Fornntp wrote:
> >> On 09/22/2016 04:14 PM, Tim BandTech.com wrote:
> >>
> >> simple mechanical simulation of a coupled system
> >> would reveal you that it is not big deal.
> >>
> >> A humble idea you may misunderstood something
> >> brings usually much better results
> >> than a proud idea you have found something
> >> what hundreds of physicists overlook for a hundred years...
> > 
> > Reading between the lines I have to conclude that you are uncomfortable with the propagation of heat versus sound in a crystalline lattice where the freedoms of the gas state do not exist. How can heat energy remain so well localized? It cannot under the kinetic model, for every motion of every atom is so tightly coupled to its neighbor that the heat energy should dissipate rapidly. It does not do so. You have gone over to a more loosely coupled environment, but generally gases are fair thermal insulators, which actually contradicts your own statement. I would prefer a falsification of my argument over your present course. The crystalline lattice lays out a simpler configuration. Indeed if we were to consider the energy storage ability in heat versus sound we will arrive in another quagmire. Tremendous heat energy can be stored, but not so with sound energy. Anyway I didn't mean to broaden out the argument. I would rather stick to a simple argument as I've layed it out initially.
> > 
> > Here is a way to get to the loosely coupled form that we need: reflection. But this would have to be a special kind of reflection, for the standard spring model will only yield acoustics again. In effect the atoms themselves must reflect the heat energy back into themselves for the most part; we do see some dysmal propagation, so we still would have to have some coupling. Anyway, this would then allow the acoustic mode to be distinguished from the heat mode. Do you see how they have to be two different mechanisms? It cannot be that both operate from the mesh of springs and weights that model the atomic structure. Please this is a common sense argument. I understand the stupendous nature of the claim, but that is irrelevant. Let's just try to focus on the issues, as Bernie has said. Keep the high ground; maintain your own sense of integrity; don't just mimic the past for that will never lead into a progression of value. Why we'd still be decoding our bibles with numerology if Newton had his way. Pythagoras even outlawed some numbers as I understand it. Do you abide by Pythagoras? Or perhaps you like the biblical stance: one must preserve the book... the book... the book... which will it be man: conformity or freedom?
> > 
> Conductive propagation of heat in all phases
> follows the same math patterns as molecular diffusion.
> 
> dQ/dt = C1 . ds/dl  . dT/dx ,
> as analogy to the 1st Fick law of diffusion.
> 
> dT/dt = C2 . d2T/dt^2,
> as analogy to the 2nd Fick law of diffusion.
> 
> Both diffusion and thermal conduction are slow,
> regardless the speed of molecules.
> 
> Travel from A to B is much faster when organized a sound,
> than if you change direction 10 billion times
> per second as molecules do.
> 
> While the speed of sound is given by mechanical properties
> like density, bulk, sheer and young modulus.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_sound#Speed_of_sound_in_solids
> 
> Typical speed of air molecules is twice the speed of sound.
> But the speed of spreading of the dinner aroma
> does not spread with such a speed, not even
> with support of convection.
> 
> 
> -- 
> Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )
> Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

In a crystalline solid we do not witness diffusion at all, and furthermore your argument is wandering away from the mechanism being one and the same between heat and sound which is commonly named vibrating atoms. 

The states of matter are fascinating and it is pleasing to think of the gas phase, particularly with those kinetic energies causing molecules to liberate from a pool of the liquid state, and the thermodynamics that goes along with it; the pool of liquid is colder as those molecules liberate to the gas phase. That is generally a substantial amount of energy. 

I do already see the coherencies that lead the modern theory to its conclusion that heat is vibrating atoms, but they are not born out in the solid state. Your avoidance in this discussion can be taken as an indicator presuming that you have credibility, and I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. Your sensibilities are quite good so far as I can see, but you have not falsified my own analysis on the solid state. With your diffusion argument you are right nearby to entropy, but here again you see the state of order of a crystalline solid as troubling and yet heat flow is well behaved in a solid.

This is a complicated discussion and there are many ways to go in it, but they tend to raise the confusion. Still, since you dodge the main point I suppose I should be allowed to digress as well.  

Aluminum is pretty soft, but conducts heat quite well which is why it is used for heat sinks for silicon based semiconductors. I admit that the heat flow is much more like the diffusion process that you discuss, and that is likewise consistent with my own claim that the mechanism of heat transfer in a solid must be loosely coupled, for without this the slowness of the heat transfer cannot be accommodated. Our discussion of the macro effect has to come down in scale to the atomic level where the usage of a small impulse can be injected into a system and its result measured either theoretically or experimentally. 
Down at this scale when we inject an acoustic stimulus or a heat stimulus what is the difference? If there is no difference at the atomic scale then how can there be a difference at the macro scale? This is how I come to the point source gedanken. In the spirit of first year physics let's reduce the system in dimension down to a one dimensional construction. A line of aluminum atoms, constrained to that line are under study; lets say ten of them:
   *---*---*---*---*---*---*---*---*---*
The * are the nuclei of the atoms and the --- are springs connecting them. Isn't it clear that there is no room for two different qualities of sound and heat in this construction? Now, when we allow a second dimension into the construction then we can have a transverse mode which raises the degree of freedom. But you see this second mode is only a little bit different from the first compression mode and there would be no diffusion effect for the energy transfer to adjacent atoms is still well coupled. We will be forced to carry on with this rise in freedom beyond three dimensions in order to arrive at a heat model, and in doing so the intangibility of heat will have to be expressed, for it cannot but mildly perturb the three ordinary spatial dimensions. This is another route to entertain in thermodynamic modeling: higher dimensions. What a shame that string physicists have surrendered to a minuscule place in modern physics. It goes to show you that academia is making wusses out of all who pass  through their ways.

Thread

Second Law of Thermodynamics: Obviously False Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-05 00:54 -0700
  Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics: Obviously False Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-06 04:20 -0700
    Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics: Obviously False Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-06 23:52 -0700
      Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics: Obviously False Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-09 08:35 -0700
        Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics: Obviously False Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-11 01:42 -0700
          Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics: Obviously False john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-09-11 08:54 -0700
          Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics: Obviously False Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-17 06:07 -0700
  Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics: Obviously False "Tim BandTech.com" <timgolden@bandtechnology.com> - 2016-09-17 10:23 -0700
    Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics: Obviously False Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-17 19:43 +0200
      Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics: Obviously False "Tim BandTech.com" <timgolden@bandtechnology.com> - 2016-09-22 07:14 -0700
        Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics: Obviously False Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-22 17:04 +0200
          Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics: Obviously False Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-22 17:48 +0200
        Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics: Obviously False Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-22 21:37 +0200
          Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics: Obviously False "Tim BandTech.com" <timgolden@bandtechnology.com> - 2016-09-22 20:55 -0700
            Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics: Obviously False Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-23 06:59 +0200
            Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics: Obviously False Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-23 08:59 +0200
              Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics: Obviously False "Tim BandTech.com" <timgolden@bandtechnology.com> - 2016-09-23 08:43 -0700
                Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics: Obviously False Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-23 18:06 +0200
                Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics: Obviously False "Tim BandTech.com" <timgolden@bandtechnology.com> - 2016-09-23 09:17 -0700
                Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics: Obviously False Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-23 11:28 -0500
                Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics: Obviously False "Tim BandTech.com" <timgolden@bandtechnology.com> - 2016-09-24 08:40 -0700
                Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics: Obviously False Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-24 18:09 +0200
                Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics: Obviously False Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-24 18:47 +0200
                Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics: Obviously False Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-24 13:30 -0500
                Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics: Obviously False "Tim BandTech.com" <timgolden@bandtechnology.com> - 2016-09-24 12:49 -0700
                Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics: Obviously False Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-24 15:29 -0500
                Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics: Obviously False "Tim BandTech.com" <timgolden@bandtechnology.com> - 2016-09-25 07:24 -0700
                Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics: Obviously False Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-25 17:54 +0200
                Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics: Obviously False Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-25 16:47 -0500
                Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics: Obviously False "Tim BandTech.com" <timgolden@bandtechnology.com> - 2016-09-26 06:47 -0700
                Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics: Obviously False Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-26 18:16 +0200
                Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics: Obviously False Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-26 18:24 +0200
                Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics: Obviously False "Tim BandTech.com" <timgolden@bandtechnology.com> - 2016-09-29 09:04 -0700
                Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics: Obviously False Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-29 18:57 +0200
                Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics: Obviously False Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-29 19:02 +0200
                Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics: Obviously False "Tim BandTech.com" <timgolden@bandtechnology.com> - 2016-09-30 07:00 -0700
                Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics: Obviously False Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-30 09:05 -0500
                Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics: Obviously False "Tim BandTech.com" <timgolden@bandtechnology.com> - 2016-09-30 08:26 -0700
                Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics: Obviously False Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-30 18:17 +0200
                Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics: Obviously False "Tim BandTech.com" <timgolden@bandtechnology.com> - 2016-10-02 05:48 -0700
                Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics: Obviously False Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-03 08:51 +0200
                Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics: Obviously False "Tim BandTech.com" <timbandtech@gmail.com> - 2016-10-08 10:19 -0700
                Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics: Obviously False Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-30 17:39 +0200
                Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics: Obviously False Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-30 17:52 +0200
                Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics: Obviously False benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-09-26 18:51 -0400
                Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics: Obviously False Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-25 08:37 +0200
                Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics: Obviously False Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-25 08:39 +0200
                Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics: Obviously False Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-25 10:16 +0200
                Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics: Obviously False Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-23 18:36 +0200
                Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics: Obviously False Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-24 15:44 +0200
                Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics: Obviously False "Tim BandTech.com" <timgolden@bandtechnology.com> - 2016-09-24 07:56 -0700
                Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics: Obviously False Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-24 17:18 +0200
                Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics: Obviously False Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-24 17:31 +0200
                Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics: Obviously False "Tim BandTech.com" <timgolden@bandtechnology.com> - 2016-09-24 11:34 -0700
                Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics: Obviously False Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-24 21:21 +0200
                Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics: Obviously False "Tim BandTech.com" <timgolden@bandtechnology.com> - 2016-09-25 08:38 -0700
                Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics: Obviously False Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-25 18:55 +0200
                Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics: Obviously False Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-26 09:07 +0200
                Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics: Obviously False Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-26 09:30 +0200
                Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics: Obviously False "Tim BandTech.com" <timgolden@bandtechnology.com> - 2016-09-26 04:45 -0700
                Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics: Obviously False Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-26 14:53 +0200
                Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics: Obviously False Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-26 15:52 +0200
    Re: Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics: Obviously False Michael J. Strickland <michael06582@comcast.net> - 2016-09-19 12:38 -0400

csiph-web