Help
Sign In
Consciousness
July 2007 
A Rethink on Classical Thermodynamics
Kalyan
It also seems necessary to correct the classical thermodynamic definitions of "open system" and "closed system". To define a closed system as closed only to mass transfer, but open to energy transfer, is a gross understatement.
Since general relativity made its entry into the world of theoretical physics, energy and mass are known to be the same thing (mass is just a special form of energy), hence the term "mass-energy" (mass as energy) in physics. Whenever energy crosses the boundary of a system, the system's mass changes and mass (or certainly mass change) has also crossed that boundary.
In general relativity there is no scope for energy conservation equations of the kind usually employed elsewhere. The fact that general relativity falsifies much of the present foundations of classical thermodynamics seems to have been either ignored or missed by most of the scientific community, although many leading Russian scientists have noticed it and been aware of it.
Thus, it is only imperative that when we use "open system" it should mean one where either energy or mass or both exchanges across the system boundary. By "closed system" we should mean one in which neither energy nor mass exchanges across the boundary.
In short, the notion of a "closed system" has been redefined into what classical thermodynamics calls an "isolated system". We already know from particle physics and the active vacuum (and from general relativity and the change of space-time curvature with every change of spatial energy or mass-energy), that there is no such thing in all the universe as a truly closed system.
So the extension and change to classical thermodynamics must be made by extending the first law, refuting any absoluteness of the second law and third law, and by dealing with the zeroth law in a new way. The entire classical thermodynamics needs to be re-examined along such lines, to modernize and upgrade it.
Thus there is a huge difference between classical equilibrium thermodynamics, where no excess energy from the environment is received, and the thermodynamics of systems far from equilibrium (windmill, sailboat, and waterwheel being examples, where of course the energy of mass in motion is what is transduced) with their active environment.
Access: Public
You are writing about thermodynamics. I truly wish I could understand more of this poetry of physics. I love physics. But, I am at a loss.
Let’s start small. What does this mean: “change of space-time curvature”
Hi Jessica,
I am extremely sorry for this so very late reply. You must believe me when I say that I started noticing the comments to my blogs only today. I just do not know how I missed them all along.
I will try my best to answer your question.
Up till now we (or rather the scientists!!) considered space and time to be different. However, with the advent of the Theory of Relativity, space and time is now being seen as a continuum. Meaning, Time is nothing but an extension of space. Will it be ok if we say that to move through the 3 dimensions of physical space, we need time.
Or else, suppose a balloon bursts at a specific point in space. Then another is burst at the same point. Now how do we separate these two events? Only by bringing in the factor of time. Right?
To understand spacetime curvature, suppose you walked across the length of a building and took an elevator at the far end up to the top floor. Suppose there is someone else who started out where you were, took an elevator up first, and then walked across the building to the far end where your elevator arrives, travelling at the same rate. (That is, his elevator has the same speed as yours, and he walks just as fast as you do.) The other person would not end up where you do at the exactly the same time; he would arrive at your elevator doors on the top floor slightly before your elevator gets there.
This is because you spent all that time on the bottom floor, deeper in the gravitational well, where time is running slightly slower than on the top floor – even if you and the other person spent exactly 5 minutes by your watches walking across your respective floors, you will be delayed because your 5 minutes is longer than his.
Thus, spacetime curvature is merely a characterization of the exact time difference between arrivals at the endpoints, for all possible combinations of velocities for the pair of legs of the trips.
so we can see that the concept of spacetime curvature is more difficult to explain or understand. Relativity regards gravity as the curvature of spacetime. Does this make any sense?
However, we all know that Newtonian physics considers gravity as a centrepetal force acting on an object. General Relativity does not consider gravity to be central. This means that gravity need not be the sole influence on the force acting on an object. From this we can deduce why the path of Earth around sun is an ellipse.
It is due to this feature of spacetime curvature that the universe seems to be expanding uniformly in all directions, observed from any point within it. To explain this, let us consider an expanding balloon - a balloon with patterns. For an ant on the surface of the balloon, all the points around it are moving away from it uniformly. No matter from what point it observes. Can you visualize this?
In Newton's theory, objects attract each other, and in Einstein's theory, an object changes the space surrounding it so that the objects appear to attract each other. Thus, in Einstein's theory, space curves. Why? I can only speculate.
Coming to your question of change of space time curvature, all that can be said is that this is related to matter in motion i.e., the curvature of spacetime is affected by the motion of matter. But it is also within rights to say that it is the curvature of spacetime that creates matter. You can place your bets on either of these following models, that is if you curved space time you could create matter or else that the presence of matter certainly warps spacetime!!
So you can see how this leads to the inconclusive debate of whether matter is energy or energy is matter!!
So have I answered your question?
Regards,
Kalyan.