Circular argument in the first law of thermodynamics ?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the interpretation of the first law of thermodynamics and its relationship with the definition of heat. Participants explore whether this relationship constitutes a circular argument or tautology, and seek to clarify the distinctions between the first law and the definition of heat, as well as the implications for understanding thermodynamic principles.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest that the first law of thermodynamics can be derived from the definition of heat, raising questions about potential circular reasoning.
  • Others argue that if the definition of heat is taken as axiomatic, then the relationship is not circular, as the definition does not derive from the first law.
  • One participant emphasizes that the first law is phenomenological, noting that it reflects the observation that energy does not spontaneously arise.
  • Another participant discusses the arbitrary nature of partitioning energy changes into heat and work, indicating that this classification can depend on the degrees of freedom considered in a system.
  • References to external sources are made to support claims about the work required to change states in thermodynamic systems and the indistinct nature of heat and work.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on whether the relationship between the first law of thermodynamics and the definition of heat is circular. There is no consensus on this issue, and multiple competing interpretations remain present in the discussion.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the dependence on definitions and the potential for ambiguity in the classification of energy changes as heat or work. The discussion does not resolve these ambiguities or assumptions.

navigator
Messages
42
Reaction score
0
According to Caratheodory, the first law of thermodynamics (dE=dQ-dW) could be derived from the definition of heat (dQ=dE-dW), whether this form a circular argument or tautology ? How to clarify the confusion between the first law of thermodynamics and the definition of heat,and capture the true meaning of the first law of thermodynamics?
 
Science news on Phys.org
It's not circular if the definition of heat is taken to be axiomatic (provided without proof as a starting point for defining the rules of a system). It would be circular if the definition of heat were simply acquired from the first law.

The first law is phenomenological; it captures the observation that energy never seems to arise on its own in the middle of nowhere. Note that the work part can contain a variety of terms, though: chemical, mechanical, electrical, magnetic, etc.
 
Heat is defined by specifying what degrees of freedom of the system are going to be treated in a statistical way. Usually we specify one or two degees of freedom that are not treated statistically. The energy associated with changing these degrees of freedom is then, by definition, work.

But in principle, the partitioning of energy change between heat and work is completely arbitrary. If you keep track of the exact state of a system then the entropy is zero and unitary time evolution then causes the entropy to stay zero at all times. This is called the "fine grained entropy". In practice we use what is called the "coarse grained entropy", which is larger than zero as a result of not keeping track of all the degrees of freedom in the system.
 
"The amount of work required to change the state of an otherwise adiabatically isolated system depends only on the initial and final states, and not on the means by which the work is performed, or on the intermediate stages through which the system passes." http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/Physics/8-333Fall-2007/LectureNotes/index.htm
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
4K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K