Questions on Thermodynamic Free Energy.

[Phi for All]

7 minutes ago, JohnSSM said:

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

On 3/23/2021 at 1:03 PM, 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.

"I think you meant to say 'baseball" instead of 'ball', because, of course, there are many balls that have nothing to do with baseball."

 

Actually, it seems like an EXACT match. But I understand your reluctance to admit it. 

[JohnSSM]

47 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

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.

This is ad hominem.  The Moderator has used ad hominem against me in a thread.  And who can call this Chief Executive on his transgression of the rules?  Isn't his the problem with human made power structures?  They do not have to follow the universal rules of equilibrium.  They can use the power, given to them in their structure, to go against their own rules.  Ad Hominem is something that someone with an exaggerated beliefs about their own intelligence resort to.  We all know that.  You need a moderator.

[studiot]

I have been wanting to use the acronym LOL for a while so here goes.

I think that coming to a Science forum and opening a question in the Physics section entitled Questions on Thermodynamic Free Energy and then complaining there are other uses for the word Law is equivalent to me taking my book of Mathematical Tables off the shelf, opening it at the table entitled "squares, roots and reciprocals" and complaining that it doesn't show the sine of the argument (do you know what an argument is in mathematics ?).

You say you have an interest in Earth Science.

Do you know what the word Law stand for in the home of Earth Science, Scotland ?

 

Edited March 24, 2021 by studiot

[Phi for All]

5 minutes ago, JohnSSM said:

This is ad hominem. 

No, it's not ad hominem. If I tried to argue that we shouldn't consider your position because of your personality, or your behavior in other threads, THAT would be ad hom. I argued against your particular abuse of "law" without any personal conclusions. The remark about the competence studies was merely a side observation.

[JohnSSM]

Just now, Phi for All said:

No, it's not ad hominem. If I tried to argue that we shouldn't consider your position because of your personality, or your behavior in other threads, THAT would be ad hom. I argued against your particular abuse of "law" without any personal conclusions. The remark about the competence studies was merely a side observation.

Instead of admitting your personal attack on my intelligence, you double down.  

And you mean to say that my behavior in other threads could create a bias against me?  You already have one.  I dont think you can now go on without this bias effecting the way you see everything I say.  It's impossible that you haven't made a judgement about me.  It is subjective and lacking in any real merit. Because I am not an advanced mathematician does not make me less intelligent than any mathematician.  It means I chose to focus my intelligence in other areas.  Thats all it implies.

[Area54]

4 minutes ago, studiot said:

Do you know what the word Law stand for in the home of Earth Science, Scotland ?

Please sir, please sir, I know this one!

And the word Law definitely stands in Scotland, since that's what mountains and hills do - they stand up in the air.

Dundee Law

Irish Law

The Law

 

[JohnSSM]

So we can go on arguing about context, but you have no power to be correct in any measurable objective sense.  Its like two mathematicians that do not have an objective mathematical solution for a problem, so they can argue all day about how to solve it, model it or see it.  I know.  This is why you guys much prefer discussions with math, so you can always turn an objective model to get proof.  But that cant be done here, with this subject we are going back and forth about.  We can both compromise, as universal equilibrium would direct us to do, or we can keep our rigid perspectives are argue forever.  

 

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, JohnSSM said:

We can both compromise, as universal equilibrium would direct us to do, or we can keep our rigid perspectives are argue forever.  

Are you referring to your mischaracterization of "law" as swansont used it? Remember when you called it "ambiguous"? It's the only thing I've offered any argument about, and you seem extremely reluctant to focus on that. You're almost... rigid in your need to sweep it under the rug, as it were.

[JohnSSM]

9 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Are you referring to your mischaracterization of "law" as swansont used it? Remember when you called it "ambiguous"? It's the only thing I've offered any argument about, and you seem extremely reluctant to focus on that. You're almost... rigid in your need to sweep it under the rug, as it were.

I feel like you have the need to sweep his statement under the rug.  Once again, it was.

Laws, of course, are mathematical relations.

Its true but incomplete. That is my compromise.

Ive been hit with a profound circle of events.  I came here to understand free energy, which is based in math reality, but I needed a worded explanation of such as the equations presented don't mean anything to me.

But the process of this conversation does mean something to me.  Im seeking a physicist or models of physics to help solve human disagreements and frictions.  

I was hit with the notion than you should come up with a formula, to prove that the context of the forum, did change the context of the statement within the forum.  Can that reality be expressed as an equation?  And in that, i find a jealousy in your knowledge, if math is your thing.  Because I will never be able to make that model, based on an objectively correct equation, to prove anything in psychology or neuropsychiatry.  I want the ability to come up with that formula, and I dont have it, and if you focused on transformative models of physics into human behavior, we could really have something.  I want what you have, which is why I come here.  But I feel so much friction in attaining the answers.

[JohnSSM]

CONTEXT: degree of completeness of understanding.
STATEMENT:  A declaration of context.
REALITY:  The state of objective actuality.

STATEMENT does not equal REALITY without CONTEXT.   So statement must equal REALITY and CONTEXT.

Reality equals statement, plus the degree of context that is considered.

I may have done it.

[sethoflagos]

4 hours ago, JohnSSM said:

  I want what you have, which is why I come here. 

John,

Just how easy do you think it is to realise that ambition?

The heart of your OP, the nature of far-from-equilibrium thermodynamics, wasn't even a recognised field of study until the the work of the Russian chemical engineer Ilya Prigogine was brought to general attention with his award of the Nobel prize in chemistry in 1977 - that's half a century after the first firm principles of quantum mechanics and general relativity were established!

It isn't an easy subject.

Do you really expect to become fully conversant with it with a few brief exchanges on a general science internet forum?

I was a first year chemical engineering student when Prigogine received his recognition, and it was something of an inspiration to us at the time.

But mastering just standard thermodynamics is a major undertaking, and after a 40-odd year career development mainly focused on its application in the energy sector, I still often feel that I've only scratched the surface.

Can you see how the assumption of being able to pick it up in five minutes might rub some people up the wrong way? Never mind ignoring any content that didn't quite fit in with your preconceived ideas.

That level of understanding takes work, A great deal of work. And if you request help, as we all should do when we can't see the wood for the trees, then you really need to be switched to 'receive' rather than 'transmit'.

     

Edited March 25, 2021 by sethoflagos
sp

[JohnSSM]

6 minutes ago, sethoflagos said:

Just how easy do you think it is to realise that ambition?

The heart of your OP, the nature of far-from-equilibrium thermodynamics, wasn't even a recognised field of study until the the work of the Russian chemical engineer Ilya Prigogine was brought to general attention with his award of the Nobel prize in chemistry in 1977 - that's half a century after the first firm principles of quantum mechanics and general relativity were established!

It isn't an easy subject.

Do you really expect to become fully conversant with it with a few brief exchanges on a general science internet forum?

I was a first year chemical engineering student when Prigogine received his recognition, and it was something of an inspiration to us at the time.

But mastering just standard thermodynamics is a major undertaking, and after a 40-odd year career development mainly focused on its application in the energy sector, I still often feel that I've only scratched the surface.

Can you see how the assumption of being able to pick it up in five minutes might rub some people up the wrong way? Never mind ignoring any content that didn't quite fit in with your preconceived ideas.

That level of understanding takes work, A great deal of work. And if you request help, as we all should do when we can't see the wood for the trees, then you really need to be switched to 'receive' rather than 'transmit'.

Yes, of course, I can totally appreciate the reality of what you are saying, and I have said all along, that I am creating models, from the results, found with math, that lead to seeing how the universal machine works, because if I am right, we are simply a part of that machine, and I dont have to understand the math to make a model that translates into psychology, but I can use the approaches...the models!  However, if the math can figure out the machines the universe has given birth to in its own evolution, i can use the models of those machines.  

The reality is, the more I learn about solutions found from math, the more I can use tried and true universal models to describe and figure human behavior.  So the model is the image I have to be concerned with, not what it is made of, because im only going to manipulate it myself, in order to fit what psychology and psychiatry absolutely know about human behavior.  IM sure someone can find a logical fallacy in there, but im still on this mission, because it has produced results that have excited me in the past.  It excites me because I make a connection.  Maybe when I get it sorted out, I can help others see more connections. So you can truly blame my glutamate levels. IM acting just like an excited neurons.  

Alas, I totally understood where you are coming from.  Its obviously the situation I am in.  If you were a physicist trying to model psychology from the models in physics, you would have the same drive as me, with different tools to use.  My tools do work to help me find truth that others do not see.

In the end, a very short explanation of free energy allowed me to see what I needed to see within it.  I had a goal to find an answer, and I found it, from people who truly get free energy.  I didnt get it before.  I still cant do the math to figure it, but I dont have to.

[sethoflagos]

23 minutes ago, JohnSSM said:

The reality is, the more I learn about solutions found from math, the more I can use tried and true universal models to describe and figure human behavior. 

Well I wish you luck with your endeavours.

   

[JohnSSM]

14 minutes ago, sethoflagos said:

Well I wish you luck with your endeavours.

I appreciate that, and if you ever have a model that you have created from understanding equations and systems of math found in nature, I would be very interested in listening.

1 hour ago, sethoflagos said:

Just how easy do you think it is to realise that ambition?

Realization is not black and white.  The closer I get is, the closer I get.  And who could ever say who got farther in that ambition?  It will take more than math.

Can you see how the assumption of being able to pick it up in five minutes might rub some people up the wrong way?

I never claimed I would be able to understand in 5 minutes.  As I said, it took a one minute statement to answer my question and many nonapplicable questions about my abilities to understand.  They were all a waste of time for everyone who saw it this way.   Someone got to the heart of the matter, by recognizing what I was looking for, and nailing it.  Lots of people refuse to give that effort.  I know.    How did i get it from the person who gave it to me?   It shows an interesting path that has nothing to do with the equations that made it real.  He didn't explain them, he summarized them.

On 3/22/2021 at 2:53 PM, 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

This answered everything I need to know about free energy to model it.  And he threw in the human trait, which I liked very much.  Clever.  Was this a physicist?  Haha

So this thread can close.  The OP has been answered.  Continue to discuss if you like.  And also, try to learn from the exchange.

Edited March 25, 2021 by JohnSSM

[sethoflagos]

17 minutes ago, JohnSSM said:

I appreciate that, and if you ever have a model that you have created from understanding equations and systems of math found in nature, I would be very interested in listening.

No problem. And be sure to keep us informed of your progress.

Goodnight, John.

[JohnSSM]

On 3/12/2021 at 11:41 AM, JohnSSM said:

I understand that if you put a sealed plastic bag, full of water at 80 degrees, into a tank of water at 60 degrees, that thermodynamic equilibrium will cause the heat energy from the plastic bag of warm water, to transfer into the cooler water, until they are both the same temperature.  IS that equilibrium or non equilibrium thermodynamics?  And what is an example of the other?

Can I note, that none of these very educated people used the example in the OP, in order to help me understand free energy.  Now, I see free energy as the energy is takes to find equilibrium between heat driven systems and pressure driven systems.  AM I wrong? Or the energy left after finding equilibrium?  Ha...any clarification in THOSE terms would be awesome.

 

Edited March 25, 2021 by JohnSSM

[sethoflagos]

38 minutes ago, JohnSSM said:

Can I note, that none of these very educated people used the example in the OP, in order to help me understand free energy.  Now, I see free energy as the energy is takes to find equilibrium between heat driven systems and pressure driven systems.  AM I wrong?

It isn't a great example to work with.

Better would be the case of tree growth in an oxygen rich environment. The occasional forest fire reminds us that the delta G of tree + oxygen to hot fog and ashes is very positive. And yet trees thrive, even sometimes utilising forest fires to suit their own purpose.

High positive free energies provide the possibility of multiple simultaneous processes and vastly more chemical diversity than near equilibrium systems. In fact, so much diversity is possible in certain favourable conditions, that long term predictions rapidly become approximate in general trends and utterly speculative in detail. Hence the evolution of life as we know it.

 

Edited March 25, 2021 by sethoflagos
sp

[studiot]

4 hours ago, sethoflagos said:

High positive free energies provide the possibility of multiple simultaneous processes and vastly more chemical diversity than near equilibrium systems.

What sign convention are you using here please ?

[sethoflagos]

25 minutes ago, studiot said:

What sign convention are you using here please ?

Sorry. Senior moment. 

Please substitute 'negative' for 'positive' in the above.

(assuming HIP/WIN is the standard) 

 

 

 

[studiot]

1 minute ago, sethoflagos said:

Sorry. Senior moment. 

Please substitute 'negative' for 'positive' in the above.

(assuming HIP/WIN is the standard) 

 

 

 

Hey Seth, I was trying to give you the opportunity to expand on your statements.

That is to note that H and G are both state functions, ie they refer to the system itself, and in themselves can be (are) defined as postive.

But ΔH and ΔG ie changes of H and G are not, they refer to processes not the system itself.
 

Also I should have said sign conventions ( I did consider going back and adding the s but I was too lazy) since the difficulties arise as there is not a single sign convention in fact, but two in play simultaneously.

This is because you ahve to have a convention to determine whether you are talking about work done on the system or by the system

And a second convention to determine which you call this positive and which negative.

[sethoflagos]

1 hour ago, studiot said:

Hey Seth, I was trying to give you the opportunity to expand on your statements.

That is to note that H and G are both state functions, ie they refer to the system itself, and in themselves can be (are) defined as postive.

But ΔH and ΔG ie changes of H and G are not, they refer to processes not the system itself.
 

Also I should have said sign conventions ( I did consider going back and adding the s but I was too lazy) since the difficulties arise as there is not a single sign convention in fact, but two in play simultaneously.

This is because you ahve to have a convention to determine whether you are talking about work done on the system or by the system

And a second convention to determine which you call this positive and which negative.

Makes sense.

"Are you talking about the mover, or that which is moved?"

 

[JohnSSM]

9 hours ago, sethoflagos said:

It isn't a great example to work with.

Hmmm...when i started reading about free energy, all the posts i ran into used the water equilibrium example.

[dimreepr]

4 minutes ago, JohnSSM said:

Hmmm...when i started reading about free energy, all the posts i ran into used the water equilibrium example.

Hmmm... Did you look in the right direction? 

WTF is free?

For example, Is a worm free to be a banana???

[JohnSSM]

12 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Hmmm... Did you look in the right direction? 

WTF is free?

For example, Is a worm free to be a banana???

Yes, of course, everyone knows that.

[dimreepr]

2 minutes ago, JohnSSM said:

Yes, of course, everyone knows that.

Which bit???