On Tue, Feb 07, 2012 at 08:15:10PM +0100, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
> Russell,
> 
> > This is circular - temperature is usually defined in terms of
> > entropy:
> >
> > T^{-1} = dS/dE
> 
> This is wrong. The temperature is defined according to the Zeroth
> Law. The Second Law just allows us to define the absolute
> temperature, but the temperature as such is defined independently
> from the entropy.
> 

This is hardly a consensus view. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature for a discussion. I don't
personally have a stake in this, having left thermodynamics as a field
more than 20 years ago.

But I will point out that the zeroth law definition is limited to
equilibrium situations only, which is probably the main reason why
entropy is taken to be more fundamental in modern formulations of
statistical mechaanics.

> >> dependent. As far as I remember, you have used this term in
> >> respect to informational capacity of some modern information
> >> carrier and its number of physical states. I would suggest to stay
> >> with this example as the definition of context dependent.
> >> Otherwise, it does not make much sense.
> >
> > It makes just as much sense with Boltzmann-Gibbs entropy. Unless
> > you're saying that is not connected with thermodynamics entropy..
> 
> Unfortunately I do not get your point. In the example, with the
> information carrier we have different numerical values for the
> information capacity on the carrier according to the producer and
> the values derived from the thermodynamic entropy.
> 

It sounds to me like you are arguing for a shift back to how
thermodynamics was before the Bolztmann's theoretical understanding. A
"back-to-roots" movement, as it were.

> I still do not understand what surface effects on the carrier has to
> do with this difference. Do you mean that if you consider surface
> effects you derive an exact equation that will connect the
> information capacity of the carrier with the thermodynamic entropy?
> If yes, could you please give such an equation?
> 
> Evgenii
> 

Why do you ask for such an equation when the a) the situation being
physically described as not been fully described, and b) it may well
be pragmatically impossible to write, even though it may exist in
principle.

This seems like a cheap rhetorical trick.

-- 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prof Russell Standish                  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics      hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
University of New South Wales          http://www.hpcoders.com.au
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- 
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