Questions on Thermodynamic Free Energy.

[swansont]

9 minutes ago, JohnSSM said:

I never said that thermodynamics was a force, so I'm not sure why you're pointing it out to me.

"If thermodynamics is not an original force of the universe, then it is a force created by the four forces"

 Silly me for thinking you were calling it a force, I guess.

 

 

[JohnSSM]

1 minute ago, swansont said:

"If thermodynamics is not an original force of the universe, then it is a force created by the four forces"

 Silly me for thinking you were calling it a force, I guess.

 

 

Haha, Well we all have our strengths.  The language I use is very clear, although it may be more complex sentence structures than you are used to,  and you are adding meaning to my words that is not there.  I never said thermodynamics was a force of the universe.  I made a supposition that it is not an original force of the universe.  Its not silly, lets call it creative.

There is a stipulation there between force and original force.  I shouldnt have referred to it as a force, after saying it wasnt an original force, but what shall I refer to thermodynamics as a whole?  Laws? Rules? 

Would it be incorrect to say "The forces of thermodynamics dictate how heat interacts."  The rules, the laws?  What works best for conversation?

 

[swansont]

13 minutes ago, JohnSSM said:

Haha, Well we all have our strengths.  The language I use is very clear, although it may be more complex sentence structures than you are used to,  and you are adding meaning to my words that is not there.  I never said thermodynamics was a force of the universe.  I made a supposition that it is not an original force of the universe.  Its not silly, lets call it creative.

Your clarity is not as good as you think it is. You gave a binary case. If it wasn't one, then it's the other (either it was original, or it arose from the four). In any event, your statement says it's a force

 

 

[JohnSSM]

Just now, swansont said:

Your clarity is not as good as you think it is. You gave a binary case. If it wasn't one, then it's the other (either it was original, or it arose from the four). In any event, your statement says it's a force

 

 

My statement also says it's not an original force, and that is the stipulation you missed.

How's this?

"If thermodynamics is not an original force of the universe, then it is a force created by the four original forces"

[swansont]

45 minutes ago, JohnSSM said:

My statement also says it's not an original force, and that is the stipulation you missed.

How's this?

"If thermodynamics is not an original force of the universe, then it is a force created by the four original forces"

You're creating a false dichotomy.

""If thermodynamics is not an original force of the universe" means it could be, or not be an original force. But you're saying if it isn't, then it's still a force, created by the four forces.

Either way, the statement is declaring that it's a force. And it's not.  

Let's simplify:

If Bob did not kill Alice, then Bob killed Charlie"

Same format, just with substitutions. The statement is saying Bob killed somebody. Could be Alice, could be Charlie.

[JohnSSM]

1 minute ago, swansont said:

You're creating a false dichotomy.

""If thermodynamics is not an original force of the universe" means it could be, or not be an original force. But you're saying if it isn't, then it's still a force, created by the four forces.

Either way, the statement is declaring that it's a force. And it's not.  

Let's simplify:

If Bob did not kill Alice, then Bob killed Charlie"

Same format, just with substitutions. The statement is saying Bob killed somebody. Could be Alice, could be Charlie.

I can no longer discuss this topic, but apparently you can.  Different perspectives are fun and valuable tools. 

To find some closure on at least one issue, how would you refer to the dynamics of thermal systems?  Laws?  Forces?  Rules?  Theories?

[studiot]

1 hour ago, JohnSSM said:

To find some closure on at least one issue, how would you refer to the dynamics of thermal systems?  Laws?  Forces?  Rules?  Theories?

 

The old approach would have been to call them the Laws of Thermodynamics (there are 4)

Most definitely not the other three you ask about.

But I have already offered you a more modern approach.

Models would be the correct word now.

Quote

For your information models, views or interpretations of  Physics that are based on the force concept are usually called Newtonian and most of the subject falls under the purview of Mechanics.

There are however alternative models, viewpoints or interpretations that do not use a force concept at all.

This is because subsequent to the original Laws being drafted (by Maxwell) different approaches were discovered (by Gibbs and Boltzman),

So nowadays we have at least three different models using different quantities.

 

This is the same as we have been trying to tell you about Mechanics.

There are Newtonian models using forces

There are Lagrangian models using generalised coordinates (momentum and position)

There are Hamiltonian models using energy

and several more.

[joigus]

3 hours ago, JohnSSM said:

I never said that thermodynamics was a force, so I'm not sure why you're pointing it out to me.

3 hours ago, studiot said:

If thermodynamics is not an original force of the universe, then it is a force created by the four forces,

 

Who said this? Thermodynamics is not a force.

 

Mess in the quote function, sorry.

4 hours ago, JohnSSM said:

If thermodynamics is not an original force of the universe, then it is a force created by the four forces,

Here it is.

On 3/12/2021 at 8:41 PM, JohnSSM said:

And what this mean for equilibrium vs non equilibrium thermodynamics.  I was hoping for a real world example of a system using equilibrium thermodynamic and non equilibrium thermodynamics.

There are differences between Helmholtz's and Gibbs' free energy --as said before. An example from non-equilibrium thermodynamics is the energy stored in ATP molecules in a living organism. They certainly can do work.

An example from equilibrium thermodynamics is the slow expansion of a gas.

[JohnSSM]

5 minutes ago, joigus said:

 

Who said this? Thermodynamics is not a force.

 

Mess in the quote function, sorry.

Here it is.

I referred to Thermodynamics as being a force, but not an original force of the universe.  But it's really quite arbitrary.   Ive asked a few people a few different times, "How would you describe the actions dictated by thermal systems? "  Are they a force? as anything with action can be a force.  Are they laws?  Rules?  A theory?  Tell me how to describe the forces behind thermodynamics and that is what I will call it.  Since thermodynamics indicates an action, I thought force could apply to thermodynamics.  

[joigus]

1 minute ago, JohnSSM said:

I referred to Thermodynamics as being a force, but not an original force of the universe.  But it's really quite arbitrary.   Ive asked a few people a few different times, "How would you describe the actions dictated by thermal systems? "  Are they a force? as anything with action can be a force.  Are they laws?  Rules?  A theory?  Tell me how to describe the forces behind thermodynamics and that is what I will call it.  Since thermodynamics indicates an action, I thought force could apply to thermodynamics.  

Pressure times surface certainly gives you a force. That's thermodynamics. Does that help?

[JohnSSM]

2 minutes ago, joigus said:

Pressure times surface certainly gives you a force. That's thermodynamics. Does that help?

Didnt you just refer to thermodynamics as a force?  I assume your sentence meant, "Pressure times surface certainly gives you force, and that force is thermodynamics." 

I dont know. I never had any misunderstandings about thermodynamics having force-like tendencies, but I get a lot of comments about referring to thermodynamics as a force, and then you yourself, who questioned it, referred to thermodynamics as a force in your explanation of why it isnt a force.
 

As I said, Im happy to call it the forces of thermodynamics, or the laws of thermodynamics, or the reality of how thermodynamics behaves.  What will please everyone?

[joigus]

10 minutes ago, JohnSSM said:

Didnt you just refer to thermodynamics as a force?  I assume your sentence meant, "Pressure times surface certainly gives you force, and that force is thermodynamics." 

I dont know. I never had any misunderstandings about thermodynamics having force-like tendencies, but I get a lot of comments about referring to thermodynamics as a force, and then you yourself, who questioned it, referred to thermodynamics as a force in your explanation of why it isnt a force.
 

Sorry I wasn't clear. Thermodynamics is not a force. You have energy stored in macroscopic systems. But a big part of it is lost. It's invested in pushing and pulling, and shoving atoms against each other, and changing their rotational states, and so on. A small part of it you can use if you want, and you're clever enough to use it efficiently, and transform it into work (force times displacement). So there is a fraction that can be used as force.

But thermodynamics is pretty much about no matter what you do, a lot of the energy content is unattainable.

Edited March 22, 2021 by joigus

[JohnSSM]

2 minutes ago, joigus said:

Sorry I wasn't clear. Thermodynamics is not a force. You have energy stored in macroscopic systems. But a big part of it is lost. It's invested in pushing and pulling, and shoving atoms against each other, and changing their rotational states, and so on. A small part of it you can use if you want, and you're clever enough to use it efficiently, and transform it into work (force times displacement). So there is a fraction that can be used as force.

But thermodynamics is pretty much about no matter what you do, a lot of the energy content is unattainable.

You just opened my entire understanding of free energy and what drives thermodynamic systems and how it applies to our own thought patterns!  It was your freelance expression in trying to explain your point of view that did it.  I could not direct someone to give me that info, through this whole thread, and then you do it.  And we only arrived here through a perceived disagreement about what a force is.  Communication must simply flow, from one person to another, and then intimacy of ideas can be recognized. Thanks!    

[swansont]

4 hours ago, JohnSSM said:

I can no longer discuss this topic, but apparently you can.  Different perspectives are fun and valuable tools. 

To find some closure on at least one issue, how would you refer to the dynamics of thermal systems?  Laws?  Forces?  Rules?  Theories?

There are the laws of thermodynamics 

Laws, of course, are mathematical relations. The laws give guidance on the behavior of energy, temperature (which is related to energy) and entropy.

There are other laws within thermodynamics which give relationships of these and additional variables that we encounter in thermodynamics, such as pressure and volume.

 

[JohnSSM]

19 hours ago, swansont said:

Laws, of course, are mathematical relations

I think you meant to say the laws of physics are mathematical relations, because, of course there are many laws that have nothing to do with math or physics.  IF we are not very specific, we can lead others astray.  

Edited March 23, 2021 by JohnSSM

[swansont]

15 hours ago, JohnSSM said:

I think you meant to say the laws of physics are mathematical relations, because, of course there are many laws that have nothing to do with math or physics.  IF we are not very specific, we can lead others astray.  

We are discussing physics, but I mean the laws of science are mathematical relations, or can be presented as such. I don't think anyone would be so confused as to think we're talking about the legal system.

[JohnSSM]

Well, I thought it was ambiguous, and ambiguity is not really accepted all that much in these forums.  When in Rome...

[Phi for All]

14 minutes ago, JohnSSM said:

Well, I thought it was ambiguous, 

So a working physicist answers your question, "How would you refer to the dynamics of thermal systems? Laws? Forces? Rules? Theories?", and when he makes a clarification about "laws", you think he was being "ambiguous", and may have been talking about a non-scientific definition of "laws"?! That's the most intellectually dishonest stance I've heard from you today. 

[JohnSSM]

16 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

So a working physicist answers your question, "How would you refer to the dynamics of thermal systems? Laws? Forces? Rules? Theories?", and when he makes a clarification about "laws", you think he was being "ambiguous", and may have been talking about a non-scientific definition of "laws"?! That's the most intellectually dishonest stance I've heard from you today. 

The working physicist was wrong.  Im sorry that he was wrong.  He said "Laws, of course, are mathematical relations"  They can be, but are not limited to. SO I simply pointed out the language he used was wrong.  This happens all over this forum, all the time, and Swansont has done it himself.  IS there a reason that I cannot point out when someone has made an incorrect statement?

[Area54]

2 minutes ago, JohnSSM said:

The working physicist was wrong.  Im sorry that he was wrong.  He said "Laws, of course, are mathematical relations"  They can be, but are not limited to. SO I simply pointed out the language he used was wrong.  This happens all over this forum, all the time, and Swansont has done it himself.  IS there a reason that I cannot point out when someone has made an incorrect statement?

Utter nonsense. You are completely ignoring context. Word meaning is contigent upon context. The context here - a science discussion, on a science forum - left no room for ambiguity.

[JohnSSM]

13 minutes ago, Area54 said:

Utter nonsense. You are completely ignoring context. Word meaning is contigent upon context. The context here - a science discussion, on a science forum - left no room for ambiguity.

Its not nonsense.  I am not ignoring context.  He should have addressed context in his own writting.  To be more accurate, he could have said "In physics, Laws, of course, are mathematical relations." I just pointed out that he should have.  People do this all the time on these threads.  You must have a real interest in writting and communications.  Can you point out the philosophy of the writer ignoring the context and expecting the reader to know it?  It doesnt exist.  The writer creates the context. 

[Phi for All]

Just now, JohnSSM said:

The writer creates the context. 

You created the context with your original question, which asked for a physics answer. To pretend otherwise is more intellectual dishonesty.

Your arguments are consistently specious, and you seem more interested in airing resentments than in learning anything. It's a real shame. This makes it look like you have a big chip on your shoulder wrt those who understand things you don't. You also seem to argue very much like the participants in the Dunning-Kruger studies, who showed a marked tendency to overestimate their own abilities and knowledge.

[JohnSSM]

14 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

You created the context with your original question, which asked for a physics answer. To pretend otherwise is more intellectual dishonesty.

Your arguments are consistently specious, and you seem more interested in airing resentments than in learning anything. It's a real shame. This makes it look like you have a big chip on your shoulder wrt those who understand things you don't. You also seem to argue very much like the participants in the Dunning-Kruger studies, who showed a marked tendency to overestimate their own abilities and knowledge.

Thanks for pointing it out.  That is exactly how I see you and other members who come into threads to argue over silly semantics, trying to make everyone else be as exacting as possible.  But then, when you hold them under the same microscope of semantics, they are guilty of the same little errors that others make, but when you call them on it, you get attacked by other senior members.  If avoiding ambiguity is the rule around here, I will follow it to the T, with every post I see.  IS that bad or aggressive?  If you tell me a rule, I will use that rule too.  

You have no idea about the depths of my knowledge or how intelligent I am.  To suppose that you do is absolutely ridiculous and based on whatever uselessly subjective means you are using to come to that conclusion.  It's worthless.  It makes you feel comfortable and powerful to suppose that I am just overestimating my own intelligence.  But, the context belongs to the writer.  And you cannot disprove that.

Edited March 24, 2021 by JohnSSM

[Phi for All]

8 minutes ago, JohnSSM said:

But, the context belongs to the writer.  And you cannot disprove that.

Sure I can, since it's easily demonstrable that context in a discussion is the responsibility of all parties. If you asked me for an answer to a question about baseball, and I told you "if the ball is caught by an opposing player, the hitter is 'out'", the context should be understood by all.

What you did with swansont was the equivalent of telling me, "You should have said 'baseball' instead of ball, because you could be talking about any of the other kinds of balls". But you helped set the context with your initial question, which was specifically about baseball, and no other kind of "ball" sport.

Now, of course, you're just making it worse by doubling down on this ineffective approach to learning. Lots of ranting, no science discussion, no learning. 

[JohnSSM]

Of course, I do see your point about context, in a physics forum, addressing my own question about physics, and how the context could have been implied.  Could have been.  It's a solid point worth mentioning.  But I didnt have to say that.  I didnt have to give any compromise at all.  I could have gone on with my hard stance on the meaning of his sentence.  And I wonder if you can do the same with my perspective.   We do both have points.  There is no math to solve this.  No objective view which can disprove another.  

Just now, Phi for All said:

Sure I can, since it's easily demonstrable that context in a discussion is the responsibility of all parties. If you asked me for an answer to a question about baseball, and I told you "if the ball is caught by an opposing player, the hitter is 'out'", the context should be understood by all.

What you did with swansont was the equivalent of telling me, "You should have said 'baseball' instead of ball, because you could be talking about any of the other kinds of balls". But you helped set the context with your initial question, which was specifically about baseball, and no other kind of "ball" sport.

Now, of course, you're just making it worse by doubling down on this ineffective approach to learning. Lots of ranting, no science discussion, no learning. 

No.  That analogy does not work.  The baseball example is not a close enough model to compare with what has transpired over this topic.