From: samodena@csemail.cropsci.ncsu.edu (S. A. Modena)
Subject: Re: Question on entropy at 0K
Keywords: Pinheads PseudoScience FlameThrowers Reality-check
Organization: Crop Science Dept., NCSU, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
Distribution: bionet
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 09:23:26 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.151007.3196@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> mroussel@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Marc Roussel) writes:
>In article <1992Nov11.123056.16262@ncsu.edu> samodena@csemail.cropsci.ncsu.edu
>(S. A. Modena) writes:
>>You are all so @#$%@&#$*@^ stupid!
>>
>>Entropy is a measure of a DYNAMIC process/system; no dynamics? ==> H(x) = 0!
>

I love you, Marc.  You're the perfect straight man.

>     That's wrong.  (If you're going to be rude, I reserve the right to
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I warned Tom off of phrases like that.....

>be blunt :-).)  The state functions of classical thermodynamics are
^^^^^^^^^
You'll find out what bluntness is really about by the end of this

>undefined for dynamic processes.  Classical thermodynamics is a theory
>of equilibrium states.  The contortions one has to go through to
>rigorously extend it to a theory of nonequilibrium states are not
>entirely satisfying.

In a strictly non-ad hominem way, I will point out that your use of
"equilibrium states" phraseology is patently misleading  and your logical
ordering of the problem is illogical.

Follow my logic: Can I calculate the voltages around an AC circuit
containing resistances and reactances by the "short cut" method of
assuming I've waited long enough after circuit energization and
using RMS current values?

Now, just because I use an equilibrium state arithmetic approach, 
aren't the voltages and current FLUXUATING through their their full dynamic
ranges IN REALITY?

Therefore, could I not attempt a FULL calculation by another mathematical
modelling approach...let's say, from first pinciples, beginning from
a Monte Carlo impulse starter event to simulate very early-in-time
start up conditions? And would it not be true that all of the various
start up scenarios converge to the SAME steady state "equilibrium",
precisely because it is actually an ergodic phenomenon: that is,
the several steady state scenarios can be "over laid" one-on-another
by the simple expedient of time-phase shifting (in either direction)
while altering no other parameter?

Therefore, looking again at how you express the difficulty, aren't
you illogically backward?  Equilibrium calculations are special
cases of the general theory.  When you talk about "extending"
equilibrium state calculations to cover non-equilibrium, aren't you
in serious trouble?

Rewmember, I'm a non-mathematician and non-physicist.  From
Newton onward, the Universe operated by Newtonian Mechanics. But,
Einstein corrected that misconception, didn't he? Did he do it
by EXTENDING equilibrium macro-mechanics to cover the Relativistic
Universe?  Is Quantum Mechanics an EXTENSION of Newtonian Mechanics?
Is Statistical Mechanics an EXTENSION of Newtonian Mechanics.
I'll admit to being an ignoramus.  
 
>     It is true that we can generally only measure the change of entropy
>during a process, but that doesn't mean that the entropy is undefined in
>equilibrium states.  Quite the contrary.

Excellent: the above ought to show you that I agree.  Now, let's
return to the original flaw underlying the problem.

Define ZERO Kelvin.

Remember, if the definition of ZERO Kelvin precludes a singular copper
crystal with imperfections, then by thermodynamic definition, transitions
are possible and occuring on some timescale....which of course is
a de facto dynamic system and ENTROPY is a legitimate calculation.

On the other hand, if the definition of ZERO Kelvin simply means NO
STATE TRANSITIONS OCCURING ON ANY TIME SCALE, then the calulation is
concerned with STRUCTURAL HETEROGENEITY and NOT entropy.

I saw discussion about proton instability possibly occuring at
the increment before ZERO Kelvin, and those kind of caveats lead
me to ask you: which came first, the chicken or the egg?

>
>				Marc R. Roussel
>                                mroussel@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca

Steve (needing a match to light up my remaining kerosine)

---
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
|     In person:  Steve Modena     AB4EL                           |
|     On phone:   (919) 515-5328                                   |
|     At e-mail:  nmodena@unity.ncsu.edu                           | 
|                 samodena@csemail.cropsci.ncsu.edu                |
|                 [ either email address is read each day ]        |
|     By snail:   Crop Sci Dept, Box 7620, NCSU, Raleigh, NC 27695 |
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
         Lighten UP!  It's just a computer doing that to you.
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO