Paper: "A new Thermodynamics" Accepted for Publication by IJRDO Journal in Jan. 2016

 

 

Abstract: Accepting that expanding systems must upwardly displace Earth’s atmosphere’s weight,and that this signifies lost work, renders most useful processes irreversible. This simplerealization has not been properly addressed in thermodynamics, allowing ill-conceivedsecond law based explanations to prevail. We will discuss how this mistake originateswith Clausius’ theorem, and continues with Boltzmann’s entropy. We will discuss whywe can never extract systems as much work from a system as the thermal energy that weput in. Then we will discuss why the traditional treatment of partial differentials remainsso troublesome, and then provide a simpler understanding of free energies, which willlend itself to a better possible interpretation of entropy, one that removes our reliance onthe second law. Ultimately, thermodynamics could be a simple constructive science. Ournew interpretations may also have ramifications to our consideration of global warming.

 

X. Conclusions:

 Ultimately, this paper demonstrates that thermodynamics can be simplified, if the will to do so exists. Simplifying will not be easy, it will take the cooperation of others, but it should be done for future generations. Understandably, the vast majority of those fully indoctrinated in thermodynamics may not appreciate what is discussed herein. In many ways this paper is for everyone else.

 

The Earth and its surrounding atmosphere compose an open system constrained by gravity. We must accept that most useful systems/processes experience expansion at some point hence they must upwardly displace Earth’s atmosphere’s mass against gravity. We elaborated on the previous disclosure3,6,7 that this signifies lost work (). We also discussed that generally work is definable as an isobaric process but unlike traditional thermodynamics, we realize that work cannot be limited to being isobaric, giving the previously discussed bubble nucleation3,7,9 as proof. This raises questions about accepted thermodynamics.

 

The misunderstanding concerning lost work, along with a macabre application of differentials, then allowed Boltzmann’s entropy to wrongly associate randomness with lost work/energy. An association that is not particularly scientific! Yet it endured throughout the 20th and into the 21st century, and became fundamental to most realms of the sciences. Our ignoring the fact that probabilities give results and not reasons only compounded the issue! This is not to say that it is not beneficial to learn statistical thermodynamics i.e. the dependence of density of states on external parameters1. Rather it is to say we need to unleash the claim that thermodynamics is a mature science by accepting the indignity that randomness is a result rather than a reason! Ultimately attaining new limitations/understanding for the various thermodynamic relations from entropy through to latent heats.

 

The fact that only a portion of a gas’ momentum can actually do work means that the upper limit of efficiency for an expanding monatomic gaseous system doing work seems to be 66.667%, or if one prefers 2/3 of the energy input. This theoretical limit is based upon the ideal gas law and kinetic energy of gases, as previously discussed. The 19th century science greats missed this fact, seemingly thinking work (or the ability thereof) always equated to energy change, hence the ill constructed foundation for the second law was laid.

 

Interestingly, this also gave us foresight into a new interpretation for entropy based upon the free energy relations, i.e. entropy may be better understood as the heat capacity for inefficiencies. Perhaps there is a preference for another interpretation of entropy. It can remain as Clausius first envisioned, that being something which when multiplied by temperature defines energy, e.g. a heat capacity for inhomogeneous systems. Or it can be as Boltzmann envisioned. Or it can be any of its other guises. But it can no longer remain everything to everyone. Clarity remains required! This means some hard choices must be made.

 

Inefficiency and the consequences of lost work may have significant ramifications to our understanding of global warming. We also discussed the principle of quasi-static expanding systems and how freely given energy is often attained from their surroundings e.g. heat baths. We pointed out, that this does lend to misconceptions.

 

The reason that energy relations are directly proportional to temperature is because the thermal energy density from our Sun can be approximated by the Rayleigh-Jeans equation. Since our Sun’s radiation controls the thermal energy within Earth’s heat baths, e.g. our atmosphere, ocean and planet Earth itself, we now begin to understand why thermal energy relations tend to be proportional to temperature.

 

This paper also shows the dangers of believing that a set of empirical data indisputably proves a given theory. Accepting that more than one theory can explain any given set of empirical data, one has to accept that empirical data can only disprove a theory just as bubble nucleation disproves traditional thermodynamics. Of course you can avoid the logic given herein by arguing that the upward displacement of the Earth’s atmosphere’s weight does not require work. I remain unsure how one does that but stranger things have happened