Why is the Second Law of Thermodynamics Empirical?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the nature of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, specifically questioning its empirical status and the interpretations surrounding heat flow between regions of differing temperatures. Participants explore theoretical implications, practical examples, and the law's foundational basis in thermodynamics.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants assert that the Second Law states heat cannot flow from a colder to a hotter region without work being done, while others argue that heat can flow in both directions but with a net flow from hot to cold.
  • A participant mentions that the temperature difference drives the process of heat transfer, implying that this is a fundamental aspect of thermodynamics.
  • There is a contention about the role of convection and conduction in heat transfer, with some emphasizing the importance of convection due to air density differences.
  • One participant expresses uncertainty about the theoretical foundations of the Second Law, suggesting it may need to be challenged based on empirical observations and statistical arguments.
  • A quote from Dan Sheehan is referenced, stating that the Second Law is empirical and lacks a fully satisfactory theoretical proof, which raises questions about its absolute validity.
  • Another participant questions the characterization of Earth as isobaric and isothermal, indicating a disagreement on the assumptions underlying the discussion.
  • There is a challenge posed regarding the necessity of empirical validation for the Second Law, with one participant asserting that it has a valid proof.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the nature of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, with multiple competing views and interpretations present throughout the discussion.

Contextual Notes

Participants express varying assumptions about the definitions and implications of the Second Law, including its empirical nature and theoretical foundations. The discussion reflects a range of perspectives on heat transfer mechanisms and the law's applicability in different contexts.

noblegas
Messages
266
Reaction score
0
The second law of thermodyanics states that heat cannot flow from a colder region of space to a hotter region; When you open a door that previously separates your warm house from the cold outside; What substance/process is flowing then to drive the heat out of your warm house to make your house cold ?
 
Science news on Phys.org
The temperature difference between the inside and outside temperatures is what drives the process.

Thanks
Matt
 
but the second law does not state that heat cannot flow from a cold to hot body,it can flow but some work must be expended to achieve it.
 
Yes, that is why air conditioning is costly.
 
convection
 
Also, the heat from your house flows to the colder region making the house itself colder and the colder region hotter.
 
When you open a door and the house cools that is not the second law of thermodynamics at work it is simply warm air from the house flowing out and being replaced by cool air from the outside. What the second law says is if you have a hot brick in a cold room the brick will always cool down and never warm up.
 
come on folks - cold air is denser than warm air, and that drives convection. Also conduction exists but it is minor
anyhow do not be fooled, heat flows from cold to hot and from hot to cold. What? Yup. It is just that the net flow of heat is generally from hot to cold
 
God I know what my gut tells me about the second law, it is just that I am not fully armed to take it down yet. No matter I will answer you in part.

To me the second law is a result of our thermodynamic perspective. I started a new thread so go read it if you care to and if so thanks. And yes it was backed by statistical arguments but they are primarily based upon our isothermal isobaric world (I know I may be biting off a bit too much because it has been too long since I studied the statistical stuff.

To me in part, the problem may have some origins in our omitting blackbody radiation from a system’s energy. I am sorry but that is all I can say until I get my head around something.

I will say this I believe that people like the guy who did the marble experiment a few years back and Dan Sheehan are right, that the second law needs to be challenged

Sheehan 52stated that: “The second law of thermodynamics is an empirical law. It has no fully satisfactory theoretical proof. This being the case, its absolute validity depends upon its continued experimental verification in all thermodynamic regimes.”

To me the second law is a result, as witnessed by us residing upon isobaric isothermal mother Earth. The key word, being result. I frown when we use it as a reason , i.e. cosmology.

Can I leave it at that for now, while I ponder how to rattle its cage in the simplest terms because complicated arguments cannot be defended by anyone. The corollary remains that complicated arguments also cannot be defeated by anyone

Cheers and I need a beer
Talk to you tomorrow
 
  • #10
Um, who's Sheehan? And...Earth is neither isobaric nor isothermal.
 
  • #11
why on Earth should the second law of thermodynamics be an empirical ?
it does have a valid proof
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 37 ·
2
Replies
37
Views
5K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 100 ·
4
Replies
100
Views
9K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
16K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K