Re: [Phys-l] Is second law of thermodynamics obsolete?

[John Denker <jsd@av8n.com>]

1) No, the second law is not obsolete.

================

2) On 03/14/2011 06:12 PM, D.V.N. Sarma wrote in part:

>  We now know that the cooking rule is not true for objects
> of astronomical size, 

Size has got nothing to do with it.

> for which gravitation is the dominant form of
> energy. 

Gravitation has almost nothing to do with it.  The gravitational
interaction is often unstable, but so are lots of other things.
A bunch of small magnetic particles, initially randomly distributed,
is unstable with respect to condensation into clusters.  Try it
sometime.  Gravity follows the same pattern.  In both these examples, 
the system is mechanically unstable ... not just thermodynamically 
unstable.

You may have been told in high school chemistry about Le Chatelier's
Principle, which says that every equilibrium is a stable equilibrium.
Well, it's just not true.

>  ... the same unexpected behavior. 

It's only unexpected if you don't understand the definition of
temperature, and don't understand the definition of equilibrium.

You may also have been told that temperature is proportional to
energy.  Well, that's not true either.  In fact

    T = ∂E / ∂S | V

assuming the RHS exists.  It turns out that E is sometimes proportional 
to the derivative of E (e.g. for an ideal gas under /some/ conditions), 
but that is not the general case.  Not even close.

>  based on an idea that I call the cooking rule

Cooking rule?  You distrust the second law of thermodynamics because
you think it conflicts with the cooking rule?  Really?