On Mar 9, 7:22 pm, Evgenii Rudnyi <use...@rudnyi.ru> wrote:
> When you compare heat and molecular motion, first it would be good to
> define what molecular motion is.
>
> At the beginning, the molecules and atoms were considered as hard
> spheres. At this state, there was the problem as follows. We bring a
> glass of hot water in the room and leave it there. Eventually the
> temperature of the water will be equal to the ambient temperature.
> According to the heat theory, the temperature in the glass will be hot
> again spontaneously and it is in complete agreement with our experience.

OK.

> With molecular motion, if we consider them as hard spheres there is a
> nonzero chance that the water in the glass will be hot again.

I don't see the difference. Both seem to predict the same thing

> Moreover,
> there is a theorem (Poincar recurrence) that states that if we wait
> long enough then the temperature of the glass must be hot again. No
> doubt, the chances are very small and time to wait is very long, in a
> way this is negligible. Yet some people are happy with such statistical
> explanation, some not. Hence, it is a bit too simple to say that
> molecular motion has eliminated heat at this level.

I still don't see the difference

> Then we could say that molecules and atoms are not hard spheres but
> quantum objects. This however brings even more problems, as we do not
> have macroscopic objects then. Let me quote Laughlin to this end
>
> "By the most important effect of phase organisation is to cause objects
> to exist. This point is subtle and easily overlooked, since we are
> accustomed to thinking about solidification in terms of packing of
> Newtonian spheres. Atoms are not Newtonian spheres, however, but
> ethereal quantum-mechanical entities lacking that most central of all
> properties of an object an identifiable position. This is why attempts
> to describe free atoms in Newtonian terms always result in nonsense
> statements such as their being neither here nor there but simultaneously
> everywhere. It is aggregation into large objects that makes a Newtonian
> description of the atoms meaningful, not the reverse. One might compare
> this phenomenon with a yet-to-be-filmed Stephen Spilberg movie in which
> a huge number of little ghosts lock arms and, in doing so, become
> corporeal."
>
> So I personally not that sure that molecular motion has more meaning
> *ontologically* than heat

Ermm... so you are saying that the classical explanation of heat
reduces it
to the motions of molecules with individually well-defined positions
and velocities --whereas
Qm reuires that those things can only be defined in a kind of reverse-
reductionism
scenario where the parts acquire their properties from the whole? Is
that right?
I am  not sure that really breaks anything in thermodynamics, because
quantum
entities still can have well-defined kinetic energies without having
well
defined positions or velocities.


>
> Evgenii
>
> P.S. For those who love heat, entropy, and information:
>
> http://blog.rudnyi.ru/2010/12/entropy-and-artificial-life.html
>
> On 09.03.2011 15:39 1Z said the following:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 9, 2:23 pm, David Nyman<da...@davidnyman.com>  wrote:
> >> On 9 March 2011 14:17, 1Z<peterdjo...@yahoo.com>  wrote:
>
> >>> Phlogiston was eliminated, heat was reduced. There's a
> >>> difference
>
> >> So on this basis you would claim that heat is *ontologically*
> >> (i.e. not merely epistemologically) distinguishable from molecular
> >> motion?
>
> > No. I would say it is ontologically the same as molecular motion, and
> > molecular motion exists, so heat exists, so heat was not eliminated

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to