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.


> 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-
scenario where the parts acquire their properties from the whole? Is
that right?
I am  not sure that really breaks anything in thermodynamics, because
entities still can have well-defined kinetic energies without having
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 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to