![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
The quotation first appears in:
Variants do appear on the internet, but I believe I have rendered the original correctly.
All best, Jheald 10:43, 10 April 2006 (UTC).
Does this revised version sound better? I've cleaned it up a bit; it is sourced by Nobel Prize winning author John Avery, in what is essentially a small textbook on information theory. The chapter in which the above paragraph is copied, word-for-word, contains seven sources by Shannon, from the years '48 to '93. I hardly think that a famous 1949 story by the "father of information theory", only recently appeared in 1971, 22-years after its inception? Either we can work together to make compromise, or we can put both our versions on the entropy talk page to see what other editors think.-- Sadi Carnot 16:02, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
For the record, another largely similar version of the quote appears earlier in M. Tribus, "Information theory and thermodynamics", in Harold A. Johnson (ed.), Heat Transfer, Thermodynamics and Education: Boelter Anniversary Volume New York: McGraw-Hill, 1964; page 354.
sometimes quoted in the shortened form
Jheald 15:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
From my readings, I have come across tree different supposed “dates” to when the word entropy was coined. Mendoza’s Carnot + Claperyon + Clausius compendium states that the word was coined in a 1852 paper; Perrot’s A to Z Dictionary of Thermodynamics states that it was proposed by Clausius in 1868; and Cengel’s textbook on Thermodynamics states that in 1865 he choose to name the property entropy? Additionally, I’ve also read parts of an original copy of Clausius’ 1860 book (at the sacred copies room at the UIC library), with un-cut pages (believe that), and it might have the word entropy in it? I’m still digging around; if anyone has any tips for me leave them here.-- Sadi Carnot 01:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
FYI, I found the answers I was looking for:
See:
Adios:-- Sadi Carnot 15:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Just wondering if the content is repetitive in places, especially in the sections "Historical Definitions" and "Classical Thermodynamic Views". This gives an article that flows back and forth. As it is an article on history, maybe having it present in a chronological frame is an good option?
The section of the article headed 'Classical thermodynamic views' contains the following:
I think it is wrong to say that Aquinas' statement is an early formulation of the second law. I think the first of the sentences just quoted should be deleted.
The claim that "be stronger than" corresponds to "have less entropy than" is fanciful and inaccurate. Thomas is talking about moral things in the cited source. It is taking the source out of context to apply the doctrine to thermodynamics.
The claim about Descartes' view is contextual. Descartes' reason is about what today we would call transfer of energy as heat. That is indeed relevant to the second law. It is still at best only marginally reasonable to say that Descartes was anticipating the second law, because he offers, alongside the argument about heating, also an argument that something that is not blue cannot cause something to turn blue; this is not about entropy or the second law.
If one really wants to find an early indication of the second law in context in the classical literature, one can find it in Aristotle's physics. His usually ridiculed view, that a body needs a driver to keep it in motion, is hardly different from the currently accepted fact, that the motion of a body is always accompanied by friction with the medium in which it moves. This is dissipation of energy as observed by Kelvin, and is one of the present-day recognized mechanisms of entropy production, which is the basis of the second law. The other main kind of mechanism of entropy production is dispersal of matter. It is fair to point out that Aristotle did not identify friction as the reason for the need for a driver. I am not proposing to put this into the article. I am just proposing to delete the sentence about Thomas. Chjoaygame ( talk) 17:19, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Another point. The claim that it is impossible for an effect to be stronger than its cause is vague and hard to interpret. What about the butterfly effect? This had been recognized in physics for over a century. A small fluctuation here can trigger a giant effect there, provided there is enough other stuff there to feed the giant effect. One might say that this refers more to the first than the second law of thermodynamics. Is triggering a matter of causation? The context matters very much. A brief discussion of the butterfly effect is in the March edition of Physics Today. Chjoaygame ( talk) 11:02, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
What about entropy? Who can give the right definition for it. Fabin Benny ( talk) 05:47, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
This quote from Clausius:
...then the generations of the quantity of heat Q from work at the temperature T, has the equivalence-value: Q/T
is a misquote. The temperature is lower-case t, and T stands for "a function of the temperature, independent of the nature of the process..." as quoted a bit later.
another quote:
"T is now the unknown function of the temperature involved in the equivalence-values"
my emphasis.
A few pages later:
According to this, T is nothing more than the temperature counted from a°, or about 273° C. below the freezing-point; [...] T is simply the absolute temperature.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dotanrs ( talk • contribs) 15:10, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
I came across a curious piece of history, which is that William Rankine and Clausius were converging on entropy around the same time. Rankine gave it the rather poor name "thermodynamic function", and Clausius certainly beat him in the marketing department by coining "entropy" later on in the 1860s. Clausius was also more general and rigorous, it sounds like. The Consensus certainly is that clausius does deserve the main bit of credit.
(I noticed this in Maxwell's book Theory of Heat: when introducing entropy midway through, he credits Clausius primarily but also gives credence to Rankine. See also Hutchinson 1981 "W. J. M. Rankine and the Rise of Thermodynamics" https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007087400018264 . )
It could be an interesting topic for inclusion on this article. Science history isn't my forte, so I'll leave it at that. -- Nanite ( talk) 13:30, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
The quotation first appears in:
Variants do appear on the internet, but I believe I have rendered the original correctly.
All best, Jheald 10:43, 10 April 2006 (UTC).
Does this revised version sound better? I've cleaned it up a bit; it is sourced by Nobel Prize winning author John Avery, in what is essentially a small textbook on information theory. The chapter in which the above paragraph is copied, word-for-word, contains seven sources by Shannon, from the years '48 to '93. I hardly think that a famous 1949 story by the "father of information theory", only recently appeared in 1971, 22-years after its inception? Either we can work together to make compromise, or we can put both our versions on the entropy talk page to see what other editors think.-- Sadi Carnot 16:02, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
For the record, another largely similar version of the quote appears earlier in M. Tribus, "Information theory and thermodynamics", in Harold A. Johnson (ed.), Heat Transfer, Thermodynamics and Education: Boelter Anniversary Volume New York: McGraw-Hill, 1964; page 354.
sometimes quoted in the shortened form
Jheald 15:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
From my readings, I have come across tree different supposed “dates” to when the word entropy was coined. Mendoza’s Carnot + Claperyon + Clausius compendium states that the word was coined in a 1852 paper; Perrot’s A to Z Dictionary of Thermodynamics states that it was proposed by Clausius in 1868; and Cengel’s textbook on Thermodynamics states that in 1865 he choose to name the property entropy? Additionally, I’ve also read parts of an original copy of Clausius’ 1860 book (at the sacred copies room at the UIC library), with un-cut pages (believe that), and it might have the word entropy in it? I’m still digging around; if anyone has any tips for me leave them here.-- Sadi Carnot 01:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
FYI, I found the answers I was looking for:
See:
Adios:-- Sadi Carnot 15:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Just wondering if the content is repetitive in places, especially in the sections "Historical Definitions" and "Classical Thermodynamic Views". This gives an article that flows back and forth. As it is an article on history, maybe having it present in a chronological frame is an good option?
The section of the article headed 'Classical thermodynamic views' contains the following:
I think it is wrong to say that Aquinas' statement is an early formulation of the second law. I think the first of the sentences just quoted should be deleted.
The claim that "be stronger than" corresponds to "have less entropy than" is fanciful and inaccurate. Thomas is talking about moral things in the cited source. It is taking the source out of context to apply the doctrine to thermodynamics.
The claim about Descartes' view is contextual. Descartes' reason is about what today we would call transfer of energy as heat. That is indeed relevant to the second law. It is still at best only marginally reasonable to say that Descartes was anticipating the second law, because he offers, alongside the argument about heating, also an argument that something that is not blue cannot cause something to turn blue; this is not about entropy or the second law.
If one really wants to find an early indication of the second law in context in the classical literature, one can find it in Aristotle's physics. His usually ridiculed view, that a body needs a driver to keep it in motion, is hardly different from the currently accepted fact, that the motion of a body is always accompanied by friction with the medium in which it moves. This is dissipation of energy as observed by Kelvin, and is one of the present-day recognized mechanisms of entropy production, which is the basis of the second law. The other main kind of mechanism of entropy production is dispersal of matter. It is fair to point out that Aristotle did not identify friction as the reason for the need for a driver. I am not proposing to put this into the article. I am just proposing to delete the sentence about Thomas. Chjoaygame ( talk) 17:19, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Another point. The claim that it is impossible for an effect to be stronger than its cause is vague and hard to interpret. What about the butterfly effect? This had been recognized in physics for over a century. A small fluctuation here can trigger a giant effect there, provided there is enough other stuff there to feed the giant effect. One might say that this refers more to the first than the second law of thermodynamics. Is triggering a matter of causation? The context matters very much. A brief discussion of the butterfly effect is in the March edition of Physics Today. Chjoaygame ( talk) 11:02, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
What about entropy? Who can give the right definition for it. Fabin Benny ( talk) 05:47, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
This quote from Clausius:
...then the generations of the quantity of heat Q from work at the temperature T, has the equivalence-value: Q/T
is a misquote. The temperature is lower-case t, and T stands for "a function of the temperature, independent of the nature of the process..." as quoted a bit later.
another quote:
"T is now the unknown function of the temperature involved in the equivalence-values"
my emphasis.
A few pages later:
According to this, T is nothing more than the temperature counted from a°, or about 273° C. below the freezing-point; [...] T is simply the absolute temperature.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dotanrs ( talk • contribs) 15:10, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
I came across a curious piece of history, which is that William Rankine and Clausius were converging on entropy around the same time. Rankine gave it the rather poor name "thermodynamic function", and Clausius certainly beat him in the marketing department by coining "entropy" later on in the 1860s. Clausius was also more general and rigorous, it sounds like. The Consensus certainly is that clausius does deserve the main bit of credit.
(I noticed this in Maxwell's book Theory of Heat: when introducing entropy midway through, he credits Clausius primarily but also gives credence to Rankine. See also Hutchinson 1981 "W. J. M. Rankine and the Rise of Thermodynamics" https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007087400018264 . )
It could be an interesting topic for inclusion on this article. Science history isn't my forte, so I'll leave it at that. -- Nanite ( talk) 13:30, 11 July 2020 (UTC)