SciForums.com > sciforums.com > Archives > Pseudoscience Archive > Entropy：A concept that is not Physical Quantity PDA View Full Version : Entropy：A concept that is not Physical Quantity Post ReplyCreate New Thread avanta10-23-10, 11:28 PMEntropy：A concept that is not Physical Quantity shufeng-zhang China Email: uhsgnahz@126.com This paper demonstrate entropy is not a physical quantity. We define heat engine efficiency η as: η= W/W1, that is, replacing Q1 in the original definition η=W/Q1 with W1, W still is the net work of the heat engine applied to the outside in one cycle, W1 is the work the heat engine applied to the outside in the cycle, then, we use Stirling cycle as the element reversible cycle , if ∮dQ/T =0 is tenable, we can prove ∮dW/T =0 and ∮dE/T =0. If the formula ∮dQ/T=0, ∮dW/T=0 and ∮dE/T=0 can really define new system state variables, it comes to the absurd result of such a definition. In fact, during the process of obtaining “entropy”, ∑[(ΔQ)/T)] become∫dQ/T is untenable, therefore, the formula ∮dQ/T=0, ∮dW/T=0 and ∮dE/T=0 are untenable. The“entropy”defined by Boltzmann is used to interpret “entropy” by Clausius, so, it is at the same time denied. （The whole paper Google : "Entropy：A concept that is not Physical Quantity yudu") chaos195611-01-10, 11:58 PMwhy would you say it is not a physical quantity then attempt to quantify it? James Putnam12-11-10, 05:58 PMI thought this subject was wiped away completely. I notice that my message is missing. I think the possibility that thermodynamic entropy is not a physical quantity is analogous to saying that it is not a property of state. I said, in my missing message, that I thought this subject may be important. The calculation of thermodynamic entropy quantifies something about a process of energy being transferred between two ideal gases in different conditions of thermal equilibrium. I say 'something' because I see it as not yet having been formally explained. The definitions offered by Boltzmann and others after him seem to me to skip passed explaining the first definition offered by Clausius. I see those latter definitions as being related to but not the same thing. James James Putnam12-11-10, 06:06 PMNow I understand what happened. This subject was also introduced at a different forum site. So my message did not disappear here, it disappeared there. Anyway, my above message puts forward my opinion. I add that I do not think that considering the possibility that thermodynamic entropy may not be a physical quantity is psuedo-science. However, so be it here. James Post ReplyCreate New Thread