Arnold Sommerfield was right (see quote to RHS). However, this author has come to realize that it is not so much to do with the subject matter as it has to do with how we have become too self assured that we do understand it, when our reality is that traditional thermodynamics is truly a complication of the simple.

We all scoff at some of the lunacies of our 17th, 18th and perhaps even 19th century sciences. 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? Herein, we shall investigate why thermodynamics is a poorly conceived science.

Certainly the powers in charge remain indignant to any notion of their science being second rate. Specifically, the indignity that one may be part of complicating the simple will feel too perverse to most of those indoctrinated in traditional thermodynamics. As Tolstoy quote points out (see RHS), human nature will prevent the vast majority of us from questioning any elevated path that we have walked, especially if we have been bestowed with the applause of others.

Understandably such experts will put up a wall, either refusing to answer their critics, or they will adhere to their complicated circular arguments thus in an attempt to confuse their critics and possibly themselves. And of course they always can be retribution whereby the powers in charge threaten peoples very livelihood just to ensure that they save face. A prime example being what happened to Paul Marmet (a proff at Ottawa University) click on Links

In order to understand just consider “entropy”. A term that is used in almost every realm of the sciences, yet it remains a thermodynamic parameter that lacks clarity. Just consider Shanon’s information, wherein the word entropy was chosen, not only because its mathematical context resembled that often used in thermodynamics, but also because no one really knew what it means, thus giving Shanon the upper hand in any argument.

Have you ever tried arguing against an illogical word without 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.

To belittle entropy is demeaning to anyone doing research wherein the term entropy involved. 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, 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 are not in dispute. However there are rules concerning experimental results.

Rule 1: Experimental results can only disprove a given theory. Too often we forget this basic fact, as more than one given theory can readily explain a given indisputable result. When two or more theories equally explain such a given 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.

Interestingly if we remove thermodynamic walls and closed systems becomes open. At which point the ideal gas law, Avogadro’s hypothesis, kinetic theory, Maxwell’s velocities etc etc all 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 is 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.

The 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 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 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 early 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
Referenced quotes:


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

A New Thermodynamics

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 rethink
thermowebsite2001015.jpg thermowebsite2001012.jpg thermowebsite2001009.jpg thermowebsite2001008.jpg thermowebsite2001007.jpg thermowebsite2001006.jpg thermowebsite2001003.jpg thermowebsite2001002.jpg
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. 
Help support this site