![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
We don't have an article on the combined law of thermodynamics. Should it go here? -- Kjkolb 12:45, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
I suggest we give a proper rigorous derivation starting from the microcanocal ensemble. Count Iblis ( talk) 18:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Most authors usually use dU for the infinitesimal of internal energy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.96.97 ( talk) 09:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes that's right, but then it doesn't really matter what symbol you use. Count Iblis ( talk) 20:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
While it is true that the symbols used doesn't matter as long as you are consistent, it is rather important in this case for clarity's sake. The article refers to dE as an "infinitesimal change in internal energy." dE is used for a change in total energy in the system — potential, kinetic, and internal. But since the article is clear in its definition and consistent, I don't see a need to change it. TroyHaskin ( talk) 15:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
This article says that the second law of thermodynamics is , but this appears to be archaic and nonstandard nomenclature (according to the wiki page for the second law of thermodynamics, Clausius called this equation the "second fundamental theorem in the mechanical theory of heat", but all modern source I've ever seen, including Wikipedia, say that the second law of thermodynamics is ≥ 0 or equivalent.) 76.120.154.6 ( talk) 01:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Does this mean anything?
"In a consistent unit system like the SI system the corresponding equation for the numerical values of the physical quantities relative to the unit system is of the same form."
Are there "inconsistent" unit systems? If you used one, would "the corresponding equation for the numerical values of the physical quantities" be different? What on Earth could this mean?
Is this like some Engineer's language -- as in, if you measure the volume in cubic feet, the pressure in mmHg, and the temp in °F, then you'll need all sorts of bizarre conversion factors? But, … this would apply to every single physically meaningful equation on Wikipedia.
I'm taking it out; someone else can tell me why it's important to leave in, and then they can put it back.
Thanks! — gogobera ( talk) 22:17, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Shouldn't this article use and for the fundamental definition of entropy and not and ? Kmarinas86 (Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia) 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk = 86 11:21, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
I think it would be beneficial to add a little subsection named "Connections with other physics" or something like that. The equation can be thought of as a canonical transformation from to coordinates of a phase space with as a generating function, similar to as how is the generating function approach to canonical transformations .
Also we can connect it to the black hole thermodynamics and the equation: and we see that all three equations are of similar form. 188.129.87.85 ( talk) 15:28, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
But I will not make any edits before I get some feedback from someone more experienced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.129.87.85 ( talk) 18:58, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
We don't have an article on the combined law of thermodynamics. Should it go here? -- Kjkolb 12:45, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
I suggest we give a proper rigorous derivation starting from the microcanocal ensemble. Count Iblis ( talk) 18:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Most authors usually use dU for the infinitesimal of internal energy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.96.97 ( talk) 09:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes that's right, but then it doesn't really matter what symbol you use. Count Iblis ( talk) 20:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
While it is true that the symbols used doesn't matter as long as you are consistent, it is rather important in this case for clarity's sake. The article refers to dE as an "infinitesimal change in internal energy." dE is used for a change in total energy in the system — potential, kinetic, and internal. But since the article is clear in its definition and consistent, I don't see a need to change it. TroyHaskin ( talk) 15:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
This article says that the second law of thermodynamics is , but this appears to be archaic and nonstandard nomenclature (according to the wiki page for the second law of thermodynamics, Clausius called this equation the "second fundamental theorem in the mechanical theory of heat", but all modern source I've ever seen, including Wikipedia, say that the second law of thermodynamics is ≥ 0 or equivalent.) 76.120.154.6 ( talk) 01:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Does this mean anything?
"In a consistent unit system like the SI system the corresponding equation for the numerical values of the physical quantities relative to the unit system is of the same form."
Are there "inconsistent" unit systems? If you used one, would "the corresponding equation for the numerical values of the physical quantities" be different? What on Earth could this mean?
Is this like some Engineer's language -- as in, if you measure the volume in cubic feet, the pressure in mmHg, and the temp in °F, then you'll need all sorts of bizarre conversion factors? But, … this would apply to every single physically meaningful equation on Wikipedia.
I'm taking it out; someone else can tell me why it's important to leave in, and then they can put it back.
Thanks! — gogobera ( talk) 22:17, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Shouldn't this article use and for the fundamental definition of entropy and not and ? Kmarinas86 (Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia) 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk = 86 11:21, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
I think it would be beneficial to add a little subsection named "Connections with other physics" or something like that. The equation can be thought of as a canonical transformation from to coordinates of a phase space with as a generating function, similar to as how is the generating function approach to canonical transformations .
Also we can connect it to the black hole thermodynamics and the equation: and we see that all three equations are of similar form. 188.129.87.85 ( talk) 15:28, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
But I will not make any edits before I get some feedback from someone more experienced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.129.87.85 ( talk) 18:58, 22 June 2024 (UTC)