Changes

Jump to: navigation, search

Talk:Second Law of Thermodynamics

890 bytes added, 12:53, September 27, 2016
Replied to comment
:It's interesting that a new user has come along with some new insights into the second law. Some people have, in the past, had difficulty editing that article. If this happens to you, feel free to edit my new page [[Essay:Commentary on Conservapedia's article on the second law of thermodynamics]]. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 23:03, 2 August 2016 (EDT)
== Recent reversion reverison by User:Aschlafly ==
The introduction and part of the main body of the page was reverted to an older version by [[User:Aschlafly]]. I suggest some of it be changed back since some of the current version is wrong. For example "This principle correctly predicts that heat will never flow from a cold body to a warmer one" is clearly wrong, otherwise refrigerators would not function.
:::The hypothesis that "entropy can decrease in a closed system, but it is extremely unlikely, so not observed for all practical purposes" is not science, because it is not [[falsifiable]]. As to the point about [[quantum mechanics]], it provides a better understanding of the Second Law than what predated QM.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 01:02, 27 September 2016 (EDT)
 
You haven't actually said why stat Mach is primitive compared to qm. Just because classical stat Mach doesn't include qm doesn't mean it is useless. Besides, the scale on which stat mechanics operates is too large for quantum effects to be significant.
 
Arguably it is falsifiable. Given a container containing chlorine and helium, you can work out the expected length of time for the two gases to separate (entropy decrease). Then work out the length of time such that the probability it doesn't happen is less than 1 in a million (or the 5 sigma needed to claim a discovery) and watch the container for that length of time. If it happens then entropy decrease in a closed system is possible otherwise you can claim it is not. Just because the time is impractical doesn't mean it is not falsifiable. [[User:Richardm|Richardm]] ([[User talk:Richardm|talk]]) 08:53, 27 September 2016 (EDT)
Anonymous user