As                               once said thermodynamics is a funny subject. This author has come to realize that it is not so much to do with the subject matter as it has to do with how we have become infinity self assured that we do understand it, when our reality may very well be that all we have done is complicate the simple.

 

We can all scoff at some of the lunacies of our 17th, 18th and perhaps even 19th century sciences. For example the concept of heat/fire being a particle i.e. pholgiston, is today likened to the art of bloodletting. Seemingly humanity has come a long way in the last few hundred years, or has it? Herein, we shall investigate whether or not thermodynamics is a poorly conceived science.

 

 Certainly the powers in charge will scoff at any notion of thermodynamics being poorly conceived. Certainly the indignity of the thought that they may very well have been complicating the simple will feel too perverse for those indoctrinated in traditional thermodynamics. Just consider

                               As Tolstoy points out, our nature will prevent the vast majority of us from questioning any elevated path that we have walked to the applause of others.  

 

 Understandably the experts will put up a wall, either refusing to answer their critics, or they will adhere to a complicated circular argument thus confusing their critic as well as themselves. In order to understand just consider entropy. A term that is used in almost every realm of the sciences, yet it remains lacks clarity. Just consider Shanon’s information, wherein the word entropy was chosen, not only because its mathematical context resembled that often used in thermodynamics, but also because no one really knew what it means, so he would have the upper hand in any argument.   

 

 Have you ever tried arguing against an illogical word with meaning? I liken it to fishing on a moonless night and not knowing where the lake is. Sure your casting may be great, but so what the lake has seemingly moved, and you are with your lure left hung up in tree.  

 

 To put entropy into such a category maybe demeaning to anyone doing research with the term entropy involved. I once exchanged emails with someone studying entropy production in chemical reactions. It sounds great until a 5 yr old asks what does entropy mean? Sure the researcher can deduce a convoluted answer that will leave any 5 yr old completely baffled, but so too is the researcher. When I told the researcher that for the most part entropy is a complication of the simple, and that its production can be associated with the work lost in displacing our atmosphere, well that certainly ended our emails. 

 

  Sure the powers at hand will argue that what they say is backed by indisputable empirical data. Onto you, I state that such results are not in dispute. However there are rules concerning experimental results.

 

 Rule 1: Experimental results can only disprove a given theory. Too often we forget this basic fact of life, as more than one given theory can readily explain a given indisputable result. When two or more theories equally explain a given result then we should apply Occam's razor rather than adhere to our pet theory, irrelevant of whether or not our pet theory is indoctrinated into our souls. To do otherwise is not to behold a clear unbiased scientific mind.

 

  Rule 2: Experimental results can be misconstrued due to the way the experiment is set up. Consider the vast majority of experiments on dilute gases. Herein, closed systems are used to contain the dilute gases. What scientists have forgotten to ask is this. How does this affect our results? It turns out that

The fact that dilute gas molecules do interact with the walls more often than with each other is part of the reason that traditional thermodynamics is written the way it is.

 

  Remove the walls and the above closed system becomes open. At which point   the ideal gas law, Avogadro’s hypothesis, kinetic theory, Maxwell’s velocities etc etc all begin to lose their validity. Certainly this in part explains why traditional thermodynamics does not apply to cosmology. In other words results from experiments on gases in closed systems is limited to closed systems. This is not to say that once we open a closed system of gas, that everything changes at that instant. Rather over time, once the walls are removed then gas molecules will collide with other gas molecules exchanging both their energies and momentums. And as this process occurs, the dynamics of the gases will slowly be altered.

 

  The above is really an elaboration of experiments on high density gases wherein the gases will interact with each other more often than with the closed system’s walls. Herein the ideal gas law, Avogadro’s hypothesis, kinetic theory, Maxwell’s velocities etc also no longer apply.

 

Rule 3: When seeking an empirical result, or trying to explain an empirical result, do not allow your pet theories to interfere with your logic. Doing may blind you of reality. Or even cause you to adhere to circular logic, something our 19th and early 20th century greats seemingly did concerning entropy, the second law and lost work.

 

 This website is now dedicated to elaborating upon why traditional thermodynamics is a complication of the simple, and how we can improve upon it. Various subjects are discussed in my             .      Plus the hope of selling a copy or two of my