Athel Cornish-Bowden https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athel_Cornish-Bowden: "The concept of entropy was introduced to thermodynamics by Clausius, who deliberately chose an obscure term for it, wanting a word based on Greek roots that would sound similar to "energy". In this way he hoped to have a word that would mean the same to everyone regardless of their language, and, as Cooper [2] remarked, he succeeded in this way in finding a word that meant the same to everyone: NOTHING. From the beginning it proved a very difficult concept for other thermodynamicists, even including such accomplished mathematicians as Kelvin and Maxwell; Kelvin, indeed, despite his own major contributions to the subject, never appreciated the idea of entropy [3]. The difficulties that Clausius created have continued to the present day, with the result that a fundamental idea that is absolutely necessary for understanding the theory of chemical equilibria continues to give trouble, not only to students but also to scientists who need the concept for their work." https://www.beilstein-institut.de/download/712/cornishbowden_1.pdf

Any thermodynamicist would (reluctantly) agree that, if the entropy is not a state function, then it is nonsense. But then the thermodynamicist would say that the entropy IS a state function and that this has been proved since Clausius. At the end the thermodynamicist might even quote Einstein and Eddington who highly valued the ideology of thermodynamics as a prototype of the ideology of relativity.

Is there any proof that the entropy is a state function? There is none. Here is the oversimplified history of the entropy concept:

If you define the entropy S as a quantity that obeys the equation dS=dQrev/T, you will find that, so defined, the entropy is a state function FOR AN IDEAL GAS: https://socratic.org/questions/is-entropy-state-function-how-prove-it Clausius decided to prove that the entropy (so defined) is a state function for ANY system. He based his proof on the assumption that any cycle can be disintegrated into small Carnot cycles, and nowadays this proof remains the only justification of "Entropy is a state function":

"Carnot Cycles: S is a State Function. Any reversible cycle can be thought of as a collection of Carnot cycles - this approximation becomes exact as cycles become infinitesimal. Entropy change around an individual cycle is zero. Sum of entropy changes over all cycles is zero." http://mutuslab.cs.uwindsor.ca/schurko/introphyschem/lectures/240_l10.pdf

The assumption on which "Entropy is a state function" is based - that any cycle can be subdivided into small Carnot cycles - is obviously false. An isothermal cycle CANNOT be subdivided into small Carnot cycles, a cycle involving the action of conservative forces CANNOT be subdivided into small Carnot cycles, etc. etc.

Conclusion: The belief that the entropy is a state function is totally unjustified. Any time scientists use the term "entropy", they don't know what they are talking about:

"My greatest concern was what to call it. I thought of calling it 'information', but the word was overly used, so I decided to call it 'uncertainty'. When I discussed it with John von Neumann, he had a better idea. Von Neumann told me, 'You should call it entropy, for two reasons: In the first place your uncertainty function has been used in statistical mechanics under that name, so it already has a name. In the second place, and more important, nobody knows what entropy really is, so in a debate you will always have the advantage." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_entropy

Here Sabine Hossenfelder extensively uses the term "entropy" (nobody knows what entropy really is so she sounds very convincing):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QnRpinVmo4&t=8s

Pentcho Valev

On 2023-02-12 17:48:14 +0000, Pentcho Valev said:

> Athel Cornish-Bowden
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athel_Cornish-Bowden: "The concept of
> entropy was introduced to thermodynamics by Clausius, who deliberately
> chose an obscure term for it, wanting a word based on Greek roots that
> would sound similar to "energy". In this way he hoped to have a word
> that would mean the same to everyone regardless of their language, and,
> as Cooper [2] remarked, he succeeded in this way in finding a word that
> meant the same to everyone: NOTHING. From the beginning it proved a
> very difficult concept for other thermodynamicists, even including such
> accomplished mathematicians as Kelvin and Maxwell; Kelvin, indeed,
> despite his own major contributions to the subject, never appreciated
> the idea of entropy [3]. The difficulties that Clausius created have
> continued to the present day, with the result that a fundamental idea
> that is absolutely necessary for understanding the theory of chemical
> equilibria continues to give trouble, not only to students but also to
> scientists who need the concept for their work."
> https://www.beilstein-institut.de/download/712/cornishbowden_1.pdf

Although you kindly attribute this to me, note that it was written by
Leon Cooper, Nobel Prize in Physics, who put it in a proper context,
and who knew much more physics that you and all the other crackpots in
this group put together. What's more, he _understood_ what he was
writing about.
>
>
> --
> athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots

Arthur Eddington: "The law that entropy always increases—the Second Law of Thermodynamics—holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature. If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell’s equations—then so much the worse for Maxwell’s equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation—well these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation." https://todayinsci.com/E/Eddington_Arthur/EddingtonArthur-Entropy-Quotations.htm

The version of the second law of thermodynamics known as "Entropy always increases" is in fact a theorem deduced by Clausius in 1865:

Jos Uffink, professor at the University of Minnesota, p. 37: "Hence we obtain: THE ENTROPY PRINCIPLE (Clausius' version) For every nicht umkehrbar [irreversible] process in an adiabatically isolated system which begins and ends in an equilibrium state, the entropy of the final state is greater than or equal to that of the initial state. For every umkehrbar [reversible] process in an adiabatical system, the entropy of the final state is equal to that of the initial state." http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00000313/

Clausius' deduction was predicated on three postulates:

Postulate 1 (implicit): The entropy is a state function.

Postulate 2: Clausius' inequality (formula 10 on p. 33 in Uffink's article) is correct.

Postulate 3: Any irreversible process can be closed by a reversible process to become a cycle.

The three postulates remain totally unjustified even nowadays. Postulate 1 can easily be disproved by considering cycles (heat engines) converting heat into work in ISOTHERMAL conditions. Postulate 3 is repudiated even in official thermodynamics:

Uffink, p.39: "A more important objection, it seems to me, is that Clausius bases his conclusion that the entropy increases in a nicht umkehrbar [irreversible] process on the assumption that such a process can be closed by an umkehrbar [reversible] process to become a cycle. This is essential for the definition of the entropy difference between the initial and final states.. But the assumption is far from obvious for a system more complex than an ideal gas, or for states far from equilibrium, or for processes other than the simple exchange of heat and work. Thus, the generalisation to all transformations occurring in Nature is somewhat rash."

Note that the theorem only holds for "an adiabatically isolated system which begins and ends in an equilibrium state". This means that, even if Clausius's postulates were true (they are not), all applications of "Entropy always increases" to processes which do not begin and end in equilibrium would still be unjustified!

Pentcho Valev

On Monday, February 13, 2023 at 1:36:04 AM UTC-8, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> Arthur Eddington: "The law that entropy always increases—the Second Law of Thermodynamics—holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature. If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell’s equations—then so much the worse for Maxwell’s equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation—well these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation." https://todayinsci.com/E/Eddington_Arthur/EddingtonArthur-Entropy-Quotations.htm
>
> The version of the second law of thermodynamics known as "Entropy always increases" is in fact a theorem deduced by Clausius in 1865:
>
> Jos Uffink, professor at the University of Minnesota, p. 37: "Hence we obtain: THE ENTROPY PRINCIPLE (Clausius' version) For every nicht umkehrbar [irreversible] process in an adiabatically isolated system which begins and ends in an equilibrium state, the entropy of the final state is greater than or equal to that of the initial state. For every umkehrbar [reversible] process in an adiabatical system, the entropy of the final state is equal to that of the initial state." http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00000313/
>
> Clausius' deduction was predicated on three postulates:
>
> Postulate 1 (implicit): The entropy is a state function.
>
> Postulate 2: Clausius' inequality (formula 10 on p. 33 in Uffink's article) is correct.
>
> Postulate 3: Any irreversible process can be closed by a reversible process to become a cycle.
>
> The three postulates remain totally unjustified even nowadays. Postulate 1 can easily be disproved by considering cycles (heat engines) converting heat into work in ISOTHERMAL conditions. Postulate 3 is repudiated even in official thermodynamics:
>
> Uffink, p.39: "A more important objection, it seems to me, is that Clausius bases his conclusion that the entropy increases in a nicht umkehrbar [irreversible] process on the assumption that such a process can be closed by an umkehrbar [reversible] process to become a cycle. This is essential for the definition of the entropy difference between the initial and final states. But the assumption is far from obvious for a system more complex than an ideal gas, or for states far from equilibrium, or for processes other than the simple exchange of heat and work. Thus, the generalisation to all transformations occurring in Nature is somewhat rash."
>
> Note that the theorem only holds for "an adiabatically isolated system which begins and ends in an equilibrium state". This means that, even if Clausius's postulates were true (they are not), all applications of "Entropy always increases" to processes which do not begin and end in equilibrium would still be unjustified!
>
> Pentcho Valev
Very thought provoking, Pentcho. Thanks for the contribution.

On Monday, February 13, 2023 at 6:59:16 AM UTC-3, patdolan wrote:
> On Monday, February 13, 2023 at 1:36:04 AM UTC-8, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> > Arthur Eddington: "The law that entropy always increases—the Second Law of Thermodynamics—holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature. If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell’s equations—then so much the worse for Maxwell’s equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation—well these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation." https://todayinsci.com/E/Eddington_Arthur/EddingtonArthur-Entropy-Quotations.htm
> >
> > The version of the second law of thermodynamics known as "Entropy always increases" is in fact a theorem deduced by Clausius in 1865:
> >
> > Jos Uffink, professor at the University of Minnesota, p. 37: "Hence we obtain: THE ENTROPY PRINCIPLE (Clausius' version) For every nicht umkehrbar [irreversible] process in an adiabatically isolated system which begins and ends in an equilibrium state, the entropy of the final state is greater than or equal to that of the initial state. For every umkehrbar [reversible] process in an adiabatical system, the entropy of the final state is equal to that of the initial state." http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00000313/
> >
> > Clausius' deduction was predicated on three postulates:
> >
> > Postulate 1 (implicit): The entropy is a state function.
> >
> > Postulate 2: Clausius' inequality (formula 10 on p. 33 in Uffink's article) is correct.
> >
> > Postulate 3: Any irreversible process can be closed by a reversible process to become a cycle.
> >
> > The three postulates remain totally unjustified even nowadays. Postulate 1 can easily be disproved by considering cycles (heat engines) converting heat into work in ISOTHERMAL conditions. Postulate 3 is repudiated even in official thermodynamics:
> >
> > Uffink, p.39: "A more important objection, it seems to me, is that Clausius bases his conclusion that the entropy increases in a nicht umkehrbar [irreversible] process on the assumption that such a process can be closed by an umkehrbar [reversible] process to become a cycle. This is essential for the definition of the entropy difference between the initial and final states. But the assumption is far from obvious for a system more complex than an ideal gas, or for states far from equilibrium, or for processes other than the simple exchange of heat and work. Thus, the generalisation to all transformations occurring in Nature is somewhat rash."
> >
> > Note that the theorem only holds for "an adiabatically isolated system which begins and ends in an equilibrium state". This means that, even if Clausius's postulates were true (they are not), all applications of "Entropy always increases" to processes which do not begin and end in equilibrium would still be unjustified!
> >
> > Pentcho Valev
> Very thought provoking, Pentcho. Thanks for the contribution.

It's provoking and, on Planck's days, this theory drove Boltzmann to commit suicide, because everyone was mocking him.

However, without ENTROPY and Boltzmann, it would have been IMPOSSIBLE for Planck to COOK, in two months, his famous equation.

Read something here:

https://physictheories.blogspot.com/2019/04/thermal-radiation-black-body-theory-and.html

And, fake ATHEL, stop usurping the real, old and decrepit Athel, or give proofs that you are him.

On 2023-02-13 14:06:10 +0000, Richard Hertz said:

> On Monday, February 13, 2023 at 6:59:16 AM UTC-3, patdolan wrote:
>> On Monday, February 13, 2023 at 1:36:04 AM UTC-8, Pentcho Valev wrote:>
>> > Arthur Eddington: "The law that entropy always increases—the Second
>> Law of Thermodynamics
>> [ … ]
>
> It's provoking and, on Planck's days, this theory drove Boltzmann to
> commit suicide, because everyone was mocking him.

This comment is up to your usual nonsensical standard; in other words
it's just invented fantasy. Boltzmann did indeed commit suicide, but
not because people were mocking him. No doubt there were crackpots in
Vienna in Boltzmann's day who couldn't understand what he said and
mocked it, but physicists of the time took it seriously and didn't
"mock" him. His lectures were very well attended and much admired.
>
> However, without ENTROPY and Boltzmann, it would have been IMPOSSIBLE
> for Planck to COOK, in two months, his famous equation.
>
> Read something here:
>
> https://physictheories.blogspot.com/2019/04/thermal-radiation-black-body-theory-and.html
>

One has to struggle through 65000 characters of this to learn that it
was "Posted by Richard Hertz". Why would anyone bother? We already know
that anything posted by Richard Hertz is going to be full of
misunderstandings and nonsense.
>
> And, fake ATHEL, stop usurping the real, old and decrepit Athel, or
> give proofs that you are him.

I have no idea what this means. I've never usurped anyone's identity.
What authority do you think you have to demand proof?

--
athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots

On Tuesday, February 14, 2023 at 12:02:52 PM UTC-3, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2023-02-13 14:06:10 +0000, Richard Hertz said:
>
> > On Monday, February 13, 2023 at 6:59:16 AM UTC-3, patdolan wrote:
> >> On Monday, February 13, 2023 at 1:36:04 AM UTC-8, Pentcho Valev wrote:>
> >> > Arthur Eddington: "The law that entropy always increases—the Second
> >> Law of Thermodynamics
> >> [ … ]
> >
> > It's provoking and, on Planck's days, this theory drove Boltzmann to
> > commit suicide, because everyone was mocking him.
> This comment is up to your usual nonsensical standard; in other words
> it's just invented fantasy. Boltzmann did indeed commit suicide, but
> not because people were mocking him. No doubt there were crackpots in
> Vienna in Boltzmann's day who couldn't understand what he said and
> mocked it, but physicists of the time took it seriously and didn't
> "mock" him. His lectures were very well attended and much admired.
> >
> > However, without ENTROPY and Boltzmann, it would have been IMPOSSIBLE
> > for Planck to COOK, in two months, his famous equation.
> >
> > Read something here:
> >
> > https://physictheories.blogspot.com/2019/04/thermal-radiation-black-body-theory-and.html
> >
> One has to struggle through 65000 characters of this to learn that it
> was "Posted by Richard Hertz". Why would anyone bother? We already know
> that anything posted by Richard Hertz is going to be full of
> misunderstandings and nonsense.
> >
> > And, fake ATHEL, stop usurping the real, old and decrepit Athel, or
> > give proofs that you are him.
> I have no idea what this means. I've never usurped anyone's identity.
> What authority do you think you have to demand proof?
> --
> athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots

Fake Athel, Boltzmann was not only mocked in that epoch, but was utterly ignored by the majority of
scientists who REJECTED his work on statistical mechanics. The prevalent belief in that epoch was
that atoms didn't exist. That's why Planck, against atomicism, used the word "resonators".

But, what can I pretend if what you write come from a self-entitled asshole..

On 2023-02-14 15:13:38 +0000, Richard Hertz said:

> On Tuesday, February 14, 2023 at 12:02:52 PM UTC-3, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>> On 2023-02-13 14:06:10 +0000, Richard Hertz said:>> > On Monday,
>> February 13, 2023 at 6:59:16 AM UTC-3, patdolan wrote:> >> On Monday,
>> February 13, 2023 at 1:36:04 AM UTC-8, Pentcho Valev wrote:>> >> >
>> Arthur Eddington: "The law that entropy always increases—the Second> >>
>> Law of Thermodynamics
>>>> [ … ]
>>>
>>> It's provoking and, on Planck's days, this theory drove Boltzmann to> >
>>> commit suicide, because everyone was mocking him.
>> This comment is up to your usual nonsensical standard; in other words>
>> it's just invented fantasy. Boltzmann did indeed commit suicide, but>
>> not because people were mocking him. No doubt there were crackpots in>
>> Vienna in Boltzmann's day who couldn't understand what he said and>
>> mocked it, but physicists of the time took it seriously and didn't>
>> "mock" him. His lectures were very well attended and much admired.
>>>
>>> However, without ENTROPY and Boltzmann, it would have been IMPOSSIBLE>
>>> > for Planck to COOK, in two months, his famous equation.> >> > Read
>>> something here:> >> >
>>> https://physictheories.blogspot.com/2019/04/thermal-radiation-black-body-theory-and.html>
>>> >
>> One has to struggle through 65000 characters of this to learn that it>
>> was "Posted by Richard Hertz". Why would anyone bother? We already
>> know> that anything posted by Richard Hertz is going to be full of>
>> misunderstandings and nonsense.
>>>
>>> And, fake ATHEL, stop usurping the real, old and decrepit Athel, or> >
>>> give proofs that you are him.
>> I have no idea what this means. I've never usurped anyone's identity.>
>> What authority do you think you have to demand proof?
>> --
>> athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots
>
> Fake Athel, Boltzmann was not only mocked in that epoch, but was
> utterly ignored by the majority of
> scientists who REJECTED his work on statistical mechanics.

Oh yes, that must be why he was elected as a Foreign Member of the
Royal Society in 1899.

Can you provide even a single reference to a paper or book in which an
established scientist mocked him?

> The prevalent belief in that epoch was
> that atoms didn't exist. That's why Planck, against atomicism, used the
> word "resonators".
>
> But, what can I pretend if what you write come from a self-entitled asshole.

--
athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots

Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 2023-02-13 14:06:10 +0000, Richard Hertz said:
>
> > On Monday, February 13, 2023 at 6:59:16 AM UTC-3, patdolan wrote:
> >> On Monday, February 13, 2023 at 1:36:04 AM UTC-8, Pentcho Valev wrote:>
> >> > Arthur Eddington: "The law that entropy always increases—the Second
> >> Law of Thermodynamics
> >> [ … ]
> >
> > It's provoking and, on Planck's days, this theory drove Boltzmann to
> > commit suicide, because everyone was mocking him.
>
> This comment is up to your usual nonsensical standard; in other words
> it's just invented fantasy. Boltzmann did indeed commit suicide, but
> not because people were mocking him.

It was obvious to those around him, years before his death,
that Boltzmann suffered from severe bipolar disorder.
There was no known treatment at the time.

> No doubt there were crackpots in
> Vienna in Boltzmann's day who couldn't understand what he said and
> mocked it, but physicists of the time took it seriously and didn't
> "mock" him.

That is too simple. Boltzmann had to put up with a professional crackpot
who had been appointed as his collegue,
as professor in the history and philosophy of science.
(yes, that was Ernst Mach)
Mach denied the existence of atoms, so all of statistical mechanics.
Boltzmann fled to Leipzig to avoid him.
He returned to Vienna only after Mach had retired.

> His lectures were very well attended and much admired.

Indeed. In particular so by his doctoral student, Paul Ehrenfest.
The Ehrenfests cleared up all the problems ('die Einwande')
with statistical mechanics in their Encyclopedia article.
(but only after B's untimely death)

Jan

On Tuesday, February 14, 2023 at 12:22:59 PM UTC-3, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2023-02-14 15:13:38 +0000, Richard Hertz said:
>
> > On Tuesday, February 14, 2023 at 12:02:52 PM UTC-3, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> >> On 2023-02-13 14:06:10 +0000, Richard Hertz said:>> > On Monday,
> >> February 13, 2023 at 6:59:16 AM UTC-3, patdolan wrote:> >> On Monday,
> >> February 13, 2023 at 1:36:04 AM UTC-8, Pentcho Valev wrote:>> >> >
> >> Arthur Eddington: "The law that entropy always increases—the Second> >>
> >> Law of Thermodynamics
> >>>> [ … ]
> >>>
> >>> It's provoking and, on Planck's days, this theory drove Boltzmann to> >
> >>> commit suicide, because everyone was mocking him.
> >> This comment is up to your usual nonsensical standard; in other words>
> >> it's just invented fantasy. Boltzmann did indeed commit suicide, but>
> >> not because people were mocking him. No doubt there were crackpots in>
> >> Vienna in Boltzmann's day who couldn't understand what he said and>
> >> mocked it, but physicists of the time took it seriously and didn't>
> >> "mock" him. His lectures were very well attended and much admired.
> >>>
> >>> However, without ENTROPY and Boltzmann, it would have been IMPOSSIBLE>
> >>> > for Planck to COOK, in two months, his famous equation.> >> > Read
> >>> something here:> >> >
> >>> https://physictheories.blogspot.com/2019/04/thermal-radiation-black-body-theory-and.html>
> >>> >
> >> One has to struggle through 65000 characters of this to learn that it>
> >> was "Posted by Richard Hertz". Why would anyone bother? We already
> >> know> that anything posted by Richard Hertz is going to be full of>
> >> misunderstandings and nonsense.
> >>>
> >>> And, fake ATHEL, stop usurping the real, old and decrepit Athel, or> >
> >>> give proofs that you are him.
> >> I have no idea what this means. I've never usurped anyone's identity.>
> >> What authority do you think you have to demand proof?
> >> --
> >> athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots
> >
> > Fake Athel, Boltzmann was not only mocked in that epoch, but was
> > utterly ignored by the majority of
> > scientists who REJECTED his work on statistical mechanics.
> Oh yes, that must be why he was elected as a Foreign Member of the
> Royal Society in 1899.
>
> Can you provide even a single reference to a paper or book in which an
> established scientist mocked him?

Is this reference enough for you? Boltzmann was a clinically depressed person with low self-estime. He tried to kill himself MANY
TIMES due to the rejection that he felt from his colleagues.

https://mathshistory.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Boltzmann/

"In 1900, because of his dislike of working with Mach, Boltzmann moved to Leipzig but here he became a colleague of his strongest scientific opponent Wilhelm Ostwald. Despite their scientific differences Boltzmann and Ostwald were on good personal terms. Despite this, depressed by scientific arguments with Ostwald which are described below Boltzmann unsuccessfully attempted suicide during his time in Leipzig."

On Tuesday, February 14, 2023 at 12:27:46 PM UTC-3, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Athel Cornish-Bowden <athe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 2023-02-13 14:06:10 +0000, Richard Hertz said:
> >
> > > On Monday, February 13, 2023 at 6:59:16 AM UTC-3, patdolan wrote:
> > >> On Monday, February 13, 2023 at 1:36:04 AM UTC-8, Pentcho Valev wrote:>
> > >> > Arthur Eddington: "The law that entropy always increases—the Second
> > >> Law of Thermodynamics
> > >> [ … ]
> > >
> > > It's provoking and, on Planck's days, this theory drove Boltzmann to
> > > commit suicide, because everyone was mocking him.
> >
> > This comment is up to your usual nonsensical standard; in other words
> > it's just invented fantasy. Boltzmann did indeed commit suicide, but
> > not because people were mocking him.
> It was obvious to those around him, years before his death,
> that Boltzmann suffered from severe bipolar disorder.
> There was no known treatment at the time.
> > No doubt there were crackpots in
> > Vienna in Boltzmann's day who couldn't understand what he said and
> > mocked it, but physicists of the time took it seriously and didn't
> > "mock" him.
> That is too simple. Boltzmann had to put up with a professional crackpot
> who had been appointed as his collegue,
> as professor in the history and philosophy of science.
> (yes, that was Ernst Mach)
> Mach denied the existence of atoms, so all of statistical mechanics.
> Boltzmann fled to Leipzig to avoid him.
> He returned to Vienna only after Mach had retired.
> > His lectures were very well attended and much admired.
> Indeed. In particular so by his doctoral student, Paul Ehrenfest.
> The Ehrenfests cleared up all the problems ('die Einwande')
> with statistical mechanics in their Encyclopedia article.
> (but only after B's untimely death)
>
> Jan

Ehrenfest was a pathetic, depressive person with utter disbelief on his scientific abilities.
His own brother was constantly keeping a watch over him and his cries in dispair.

He also used Einstein as a crying shoulder for more than a decade, since they met in 1912.

Finally, 20 years later, and after confessing to DIRAC (as if the autist could have a bit of empathy)
that he didn't understand physics anymore, he shot his impaired son and took his life in a public space.

Maybe, he and Boltzmann shared the same feelings about life, due to their pathology.

BTW, all this is AVAILABLE in authorized biographies, which I have read avidly since ever.

From almost EVERY SINGLE RELEVANT PERSON in physics and electronics (100+).

I invite you to do a similar thing. History of science is not the same as science, and such difference poses a problem
to ANY professor in the world that try to illustrate their students better. What to teach? Dry, cold theories? Or the path
that led to the development of such theories?

The last way is the most fascinating and forming. It has been my way since EVER.

On 2023-02-14 15:32:27 +0000, Richard Hertz said:

> On Tuesday, February 14, 2023 at 12:22:59 PM UTC-3, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>> On 2023-02-14 15:13:38 +0000, Richard Hertz said:>> > On Tuesday,
>> February 14, 2023 at 12:02:52 PM UTC-3, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:> >>
>> On 2023-02-13 14:06:10 +0000, Richard Hertz said:>> > On Monday,> >>
>> February 13, 2023 at 6:59:16 AM UTC-3, patdolan wrote:> >> On Monday,>
>> >> February 13, 2023 at 1:36:04 AM UTC-8, Pentcho Valev wrote:>> >> >>
>> >> Arthur Eddington: "The law that entropy always increases—the Second>
>> >>> >> Law of Thermodynamics> >>>> [ … ]> >>>> >>> It's provoking and,
>> on Planck's days, this theory drove Boltzmann to> >> >>> commit
>> suicide, because everyone was mocking him.> >> This comment is up to
>> your usual nonsensical standard; in other words>> >> it's just invented
>> fantasy. Boltzmann did indeed commit suicide, but>> >> not because
>> people were mocking him. No doubt there were crackpots in>> >> Vienna
>> in Boltzmann's day who couldn't understand what he said and>> >> mocked
>> it, but physicists of the time took it seriously and didn't>> >> "mock"
>> him. His lectures were very well attended and much admired.> >>>> >>>
>> However, without ENTROPY and Boltzmann, it would have been IMPOSSIBLE>>
>> >>> > for Planck to COOK, in two months, his famous equation.> >> >
>> Read> >>> something here:> >> >> >>>
>> https://physictheories.blogspot.com/2019/04/thermal-radiation-black-body-theory-and.html>>
>> >>> >> >> One has to struggle through 65000 characters of this to learn
>> that it>> >> was "Posted by Richard Hertz". Why would anyone bother? We
>> already> >> know> that anything posted by Richard Hertz is going to be
>> full of>> >> misunderstandings and nonsense.> >>>> >>> And, fake ATHEL,
>> stop usurping the real, old and decrepit Athel, or> >> >>> give proofs
>> that you are him.> >> I have no idea what this means. I've never
>> usurped anyone's identity.>> >> What authority do you think you have to
>> demand proof?> >> --> >> athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but
>> detector of crackpots> >> > Fake Athel, Boltzmann was not only mocked
>> in that epoch, but was> > utterly ignored by the majority of> >
>> scientists who REJECTED his work on statistical mechanics.
>> Oh yes, that must be why he was elected as a Foreign Member of the>
>> Royal Society in 1899.>> Can you provide even a single reference to a
>> paper or book in which an> established scientist mocked him?
>
> Is this reference enough for you? Boltzmann was a clinically depressed
> person with low self-estime. He tried to kill himself MANYTIMES due to
> the rejection that he felt from his colleagues.
>
> https://mathshistory.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Boltzmann/

No mention of mocking there. So no, it isn't. In any case I wanted
something written during his lifetime by a real scientist. J J O'Connor
may be expert on such things as Plastic reconstructive surgery after
total loss of the penis, but I haven't found anything to indicate
expertise in the relevant topic. Probably it's a different J J
O'Connor, but maybe you can point to his work in physics.
>
> "In 1900, because of his dislike of working with Mach, Boltzmann moved
> to Leipzig but here he became a colleague of his strongest scientific
> opponent Wilhelm Ostwald. Despite their scientific differences
> Boltzmann and Ostwald were on good personal terms. Despite this,
> depressed by scientific arguments with Ostwald which are described
> below Boltzmann unsuccessfully attempted suicide during his time in
> Leipzig."

--
athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots

On 2/14/2023 10:32 AM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 14, 2023 at 12:22:59 PM UTC-3, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>> On 2023-02-14 15:13:38 +0000, Richard Hertz said:
>>
>>> On Tuesday, February 14, 2023 at 12:02:52 PM UTC-3, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>>>> On 2023-02-13 14:06:10 +0000, Richard Hertz said:>> > On Monday,
>>>> February 13, 2023 at 6:59:16 AM UTC-3, patdolan wrote:> >> On Monday,
>>>> February 13, 2023 at 1:36:04 AM UTC-8, Pentcho Valev wrote:>> >> >
>>>> Arthur Eddington: "The law that entropy always increases—the Second> >>
>>>> Law of Thermodynamics
>>>>>> [ … ]
>>>>>
>>>>> It's provoking and, on Planck's days, this theory drove Boltzmann to> >
>>>>> commit suicide, because everyone was mocking him.
>>>> This comment is up to your usual nonsensical standard; in other words>
>>>> it's just invented fantasy. Boltzmann did indeed commit suicide, but>
>>>> not because people were mocking him. No doubt there were crackpots in>
>>>> Vienna in Boltzmann's day who couldn't understand what he said and>
>>>> mocked it, but physicists of the time took it seriously and didn't>
>>>> "mock" him. His lectures were very well attended and much admired.
>>>>>
>>>>> However, without ENTROPY and Boltzmann, it would have been IMPOSSIBLE>
>>>>>> for Planck to COOK, in two months, his famous equation.> >> > Read
>>>>> something here:> >> >
>>>>> https://physictheories.blogspot.com/2019/04/thermal-radiation-black-body-theory-and.html>
>>>>>>
>>>> One has to struggle through 65000 characters of this to learn that it>
>>>> was "Posted by Richard Hertz". Why would anyone bother? We already
>>>> know> that anything posted by Richard Hertz is going to be full of>
>>>> misunderstandings and nonsense.
>>>>>
>>>>> And, fake ATHEL, stop usurping the real, old and decrepit Athel, or> >
>>>>> give proofs that you are him.
>>>> I have no idea what this means. I've never usurped anyone's identity.>
>>>> What authority do you think you have to demand proof?
>>>> --
>>>> athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots
>>>
>>> Fake Athel, Boltzmann was not only mocked in that epoch, but was
>>> utterly ignored by the majority of
>>> scientists who REJECTED his work on statistical mechanics.
>> Oh yes, that must be why he was elected as a Foreign Member of the
>> Royal Society in 1899.
>>
>> Can you provide even a single reference to a paper or book in which an
>> established scientist mocked him?
>
> Is this reference enough for you? Boltzmann was a clinically depressed person with low self-estime. He tried to kill himself MANY
> TIMES due to the rejection that he felt from his colleagues.
>
> https://mathshistory.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Boltzmann/
>
> "In 1900, because of his dislike of working with Mach, Boltzmann moved to Leipzig but here he became a colleague of his strongest scientific opponent Wilhelm Ostwald. Despite their scientific differences Boltzmann and Ostwald were on good personal terms. Despite this, depressed by scientific arguments with Ostwald which are described below Boltzmann unsuccessfully attempted suicide during his time in Leipzig."
>
Boltzmann exhibited symptoms of what today would be diagnosed as bipolar
disorder. See https://paperpile.com/blog/ludwig-boltzmann/

On Tuesday, February 14, 2023 at 7:42:01 AM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 14, 2023 at 12:27:46 PM UTC-3, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > Athel Cornish-Bowden <athe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On 2023-02-13 14:06:10 +0000, Richard Hertz said:
> > >
> > > > On Monday, February 13, 2023 at 6:59:16 AM UTC-3, patdolan wrote:
> > > >> On Monday, February 13, 2023 at 1:36:04 AM UTC-8, Pentcho Valev wrote:>
> > > >> > Arthur Eddington: "The law that entropy always increases—the Second
> > > >> Law of Thermodynamics
> > > >> [ … ]
> > > >
> > > > It's provoking and, on Planck's days, this theory drove Boltzmann to
> > > > commit suicide, because everyone was mocking him.
> > >
> > > This comment is up to your usual nonsensical standard; in other words
> > > it's just invented fantasy. Boltzmann did indeed commit suicide, but
> > > not because people were mocking him.
> > It was obvious to those around him, years before his death,
> > that Boltzmann suffered from severe bipolar disorder.
> > There was no known treatment at the time.
> > > No doubt there were crackpots in
> > > Vienna in Boltzmann's day who couldn't understand what he said and
> > > mocked it, but physicists of the time took it seriously and didn't
> > > "mock" him.
> > That is too simple. Boltzmann had to put up with a professional crackpot
> > who had been appointed as his collegue,
> > as professor in the history and philosophy of science.
> > (yes, that was Ernst Mach)
> > Mach denied the existence of atoms, so all of statistical mechanics.
> > Boltzmann fled to Leipzig to avoid him.
> > He returned to Vienna only after Mach had retired.
> > > His lectures were very well attended and much admired.
> > Indeed. In particular so by his doctoral student, Paul Ehrenfest.
> > The Ehrenfests cleared up all the problems ('die Einwande')
> > with statistical mechanics in their Encyclopedia article.
> > (but only after B's untimely death)
> >
> > Jan
> Ehrenfest was a pathetic, depressive person with utter disbelief on his scientific abilities.
> His own brother was constantly keeping a watch over him and his cries in dispair.
>
> He also used Einstein as a crying shoulder for more than a decade, since they met in 1912.
>
> Finally, 20 years later, and after confessing to DIRAC (as if the autist could have a bit of empathy)
> that he didn't understand physics anymore, he shot his impaired son and took his life in a public space.
>
> Maybe, he and Boltzmann shared the same feelings about life, due to their pathology.
>
> BTW, all this is AVAILABLE in authorized biographies, which I have read avidly since ever.
>
> From almost EVERY SINGLE RELEVANT PERSON in physics and electronics (100+).
>
> I invite you to do a similar thing. History of science is not the same as science, and such difference poses a problem
> to ANY professor in the world that try to illustrate their students better. What to teach? Dry, cold theories? Or the path
> that led to the development of such theories?
>
> The last way is the most fascinating and forming. It has been my way since EVER.
Yet another wonderful post, Richard. One of the reasons that a scientific explanation is always wrong, and ultimately overturned by the next scientist to come down the pike, is because it purports to be complete. Childish. Here's Chesterton on the subject:

"The madman is not the man who has lost his reason. The madman is the man who has lost everything except his reason. The madman's explanation of a thing is always complete, and often in a purely rational sense satisfactory....."

A person who strives to be a full time professional scientist, and little more, most likely has underlying unresolved mental issues. This is practically a truism when it comes to psychiatry and psychology.

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tuesday, February 14, 2023 at 12:27:46 PM UTC-3, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > Athel Cornish-Bowden <athe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On 2023-02-13 14:06:10 +0000, Richard Hertz said:
> > >
> > > > On Monday, February 13, 2023 at 6:59:16 AM UTC-3, patdolan wrote:
> > > >> On Monday, February 13, 2023 at 1:36:04 AM UTC-8, Pentcho Valev wrote:>
> > > >> > Arthur Eddington: "The law that entropy always increases—the Second
> > > >> Law of Thermodynamics
> > > >> [ … ]
> > > >
> > > > It's provoking and, on Planck's days, this theory drove Boltzmann to
> > > > commit suicide, because everyone was mocking him.
> > >
> > > This comment is up to your usual nonsensical standard; in other words
> > > it's just invented fantasy. Boltzmann did indeed commit suicide, but
> > > not because people were mocking him.
> > It was obvious to those around him, years before his death,
> > that Boltzmann suffered from severe bipolar disorder.
> > There was no known treatment at the time.
> > > No doubt there were crackpots in
> > > Vienna in Boltzmann's day who couldn't understand what he said and
> > > mocked it, but physicists of the time took it seriously and didn't
> > > "mock" him.
> > That is too simple. Boltzmann had to put up with a professional crackpot
> > who had been appointed as his collegue,
> > as professor in the history and philosophy of science.
> > (yes, that was Ernst Mach)
> > Mach denied the existence of atoms, so all of statistical mechanics.
> > Boltzmann fled to Leipzig to avoid him.
> > He returned to Vienna only after Mach had retired.
> > > His lectures were very well attended and much admired.
> > Indeed. In particular so by his doctoral student, Paul Ehrenfest.
> > The Ehrenfests cleared up all the problems ('die Einwande')
> > with statistical mechanics in their Encyclopedia article.
> > (but only after B's untimely death)
> >
> > Jan
>
> Ehrenfest was a pathetic, depressive person with utter disbelief on his
> scientific abilities.

Ehrenfest was one of the masters of statististical mechanics
early in the 20th century. Actually he built most of the field,
on the foundations laid by Boltzmann.
FYI, The foundational Encyclopedia article of the Ehrenfests
is also available in English translation.
===
The Conceptual Foundations of the Statistical Approach in Mechanics - P.
Ehrenfest, T. Ehrenfest (Dover, 1959)
===

And FYI, a masterpiece is a masterpiece whether or not
the creator of it believes in it.
But Ehrenfest knew what he had accomplished.
Just curious: do you also tear up a Van Gogh reproduction
whenever you can get your hands on one?

As far as appreciation is concerned: Why do you think that none other
than H. A. Lorentz wanted to have Ehrenfest as his successor in Leyden?
[snip misinformation]

> BTW, all this is AVAILABLE in authorized biographies, which I have read
> avidly since ever.

So you don't know what 'authorized biography' means either.
You really are a pathetic case,

Jan

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tuesday, February 14, 2023 at 12:22:59 PM UTC-3, Athel Cornish-Bowden:
> > On 2023-02-14 15:13:38 +0000, Richard Hertz said:
[-]
> > > Fake Athel, Boltzmann was not only mocked in that epoch, but was
> > > utterly ignored by the majority of
> > > scientists who REJECTED his work on statistical mechanics.
> > Oh yes, that must be why he was elected as a Foreign Member of the
> > Royal Society in 1899.
> >
> > Can you provide even a single reference to a paper or book in which an
> > established scientist mocked him?
>
> Is this reference enough for you? Boltzmann was a clinically depressed
> person with low self-estime. He tried to kill himself MANY TIMES due to
> the rejection that he felt from his colleagues.
>
> https://mathshistory.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Boltzmann/

Do you ever read your own references?
FYI, it ends with:
===
"However the cause of his suicide may have been wrongly attributed to
the lack of acceptance of his ideas. We will never know the real cause
which may have been the result of mental illness causing his
depression."
===

And FYI: bipolar disorder can be treated with medication, nowadays.
In the 19th century it was a killer-disease.

Jan

On Tuesday, February 14, 2023 at 5:03:06 PM UTC-3, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, February 14, 2023 at 12:27:46 PM UTC-3, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > Athel Cornish-Bowden <athe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On 2023-02-13 14:06:10 +0000, Richard Hertz said:
> > > >
> > > > > On Monday, February 13, 2023 at 6:59:16 AM UTC-3, patdolan wrote:
> > > > >> On Monday, February 13, 2023 at 1:36:04 AM UTC-8, Pentcho Valev wrote:>
> > > > >> > Arthur Eddington: "The law that entropy always increases—the Second
> > > > >> Law of Thermodynamics
> > > > >> [ … ]
> > > > >
> > > > > It's provoking and, on Planck's days, this theory drove Boltzmann to
> > > > > commit suicide, because everyone was mocking him.
> > > >
> > > > This comment is up to your usual nonsensical standard; in other words
> > > > it's just invented fantasy. Boltzmann did indeed commit suicide, but
> > > > not because people were mocking him.
> > > It was obvious to those around him, years before his death,
> > > that Boltzmann suffered from severe bipolar disorder.
> > > There was no known treatment at the time.
> > > > No doubt there were crackpots in
> > > > Vienna in Boltzmann's day who couldn't understand what he said and
> > > > mocked it, but physicists of the time took it seriously and didn't
> > > > "mock" him.
> > > That is too simple. Boltzmann had to put up with a professional crackpot
> > > who had been appointed as his collegue,
> > > as professor in the history and philosophy of science.
> > > (yes, that was Ernst Mach)
> > > Mach denied the existence of atoms, so all of statistical mechanics.
> > > Boltzmann fled to Leipzig to avoid him.
> > > He returned to Vienna only after Mach had retired.
> > > > His lectures were very well attended and much admired.
> > > Indeed. In particular so by his doctoral student, Paul Ehrenfest.
> > > The Ehrenfests cleared up all the problems ('die Einwande')
> > > with statistical mechanics in their Encyclopedia article.
> > > (but only after B's untimely death)
> > >
> > > Jan
> >
> > Ehrenfest was a pathetic, depressive person with utter disbelief on his
> > scientific abilities.
> Ehrenfest was one of the masters of statististical mechanics
> early in the 20th century. Actually he built most of the field,
> on the foundations laid by Boltzmann.
> FYI, The foundational Encyclopedia article of the Ehrenfests
> is also available in English translation.
> ===
> The Conceptual Foundations of the Statistical Approach in Mechanics - P.
> Ehrenfest, T. Ehrenfest (Dover, 1959)
> ===
>
> And FYI, a masterpiece is a masterpiece whether or not
> the creator of it believes in it.
> But Ehrenfest knew what he had accomplished.
> Just curious: do you also tear up a Van Gogh reproduction
> whenever you can get your hands on one?
>
> As far as appreciation is concerned: Why do you think that none other
> than H. A. Lorentz wanted to have Ehrenfest as his successor in Leyden?
> [snip misinformation]
> > BTW, all this is AVAILABLE in authorized biographies, which I have read
> > avidly since ever.
> So you don't know what 'authorized biography' means either.
> You really are a pathetic case,
>
> Jan

What would you know, fucking imbecile.

Read this book, without moving your lips.

The Strangest Man
The Hidden Life of Paul Dirac, Mystic of the Atom
Copyright © 2009 by Graham Farmelo, 558 Pages
Published in Britain in 2009 by Faber and Faber Limited,
Member of the Perseus Books Group

EXCERPT FROM PAGE 230
..............................
The physicists at the meeting were in buoyant mood, though
Ehrenfest was in poor spirits. Pudgy-faced and overweight, he was
losing his grip on physics; for him, the succession of research reports
were now a dispiriting agglomeration of detail. Convinced that his
own work was worthless, he was looking for a new, less prominent
academic position where he could motor in the slow lane.48 But he
had not given up completely: during the discussions, he was still the
unselfconscious inquisitor, pressing every speaker towards complete
clarity, helping to draw attention away from irrelevancies and
towards the saliencies of the new ideas. He was especially close to
Dirac at this meeting, and they spent hours talking, keeping a few
breaths away from the smokers’ fug.49

After the closing speeches in Bohr’s home, the physicists put their
luggage in the entrance hall and said their goodbyes.50 It was the
usual bitter-sweet parting, but one delegate seemed especially out of
sorts: Ehrenfest, about to catch a waiting taxi, looked flustered and
unhappy. When Dirac thanked him for his contributions to the meeting,
he was speechless and, apparently to avoid responding, hurried
over to Bohr to say farewell.

When he returned, Ehrenfest was bowing and sobbing: ‘What you have
said, coming from a young man like you, means very much to me
because, maybe, a man such as I feels he has no force to live.’
Ehrenfest should not be allowed to travel home alone, Dirac thought,
but he changed his mind.

On 2023-02-14 20:03:03 +0000, J. J. Lodder said:

> Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tuesday, February 14, 2023 at 12:22:59 PM UTC-3, Athel Cornish-Bowden:
>>> On 2023-02-14 15:13:38 +0000, Richard Hertz said:
> [-]
>>>> Fake Athel, Boltzmann was not only mocked in that epoch, but was
>>>> utterly ignored by the majority of
>>>> scientists who REJECTED his work on statistical mechanics.
>>> Oh yes, that must be why he was elected as a Foreign Member of the
>>> Royal Society in 1899.
>>>
>>> Can you provide even a single reference to a paper or book in which an
>>> established scientist mocked him?
>>
>> Is this reference enough for you? Boltzmann was a clinically depressed
>> person with low self-estime. He tried to kill himself MANY TIMES due to
>> the rejection that he felt from his colleagues.
>>
>> https://mathshistory.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Boltzmann/
>
> Do you ever read your own references?
> FYI, it ends with:
> ===
> "However the cause of his suicide may have been wrongly attributed to
> the lack of acceptance of his ideas. We will never know the real cause
> which may have been the result of mental illness causing his
> depression."
> ===

Yes, I also read that, and almost quoted it myself. Clearly Richard
Hertz is incapable of understanding what he reads.

>
> And FYI: bipolar disorder can be treated with medication, nowadays.
> In the 19th century it was a killer-disease.
>
> Jan

--
athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tuesday, February 14, 2023 at 5:03:06 PM UTC-3, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Tuesday, February 14, 2023 at 12:27:46 PM UTC-3, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > > Athel Cornish-Bowden <athe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On 2023-02-13 14:06:10 +0000, Richard Hertz said:
> > > > >
> > > > > > On Monday, February 13, 2023 at 6:59:16 AM UTC-3, patdolan wrote:
> > > > > >> On Monday, February 13, 2023 at 1:36:04 AM UTC-8, Pentcho Valev:>
> > > > > >> > Arthur Eddington: "The law that entropy always increases—the
> > > > > >> Second Law of Thermodynamics
> > > > > >> [ … ]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It's provoking and, on Planck's days, this theory drove Boltzmann to
> > > > > > commit suicide, because everyone was mocking him.
> > > > >
> > > > > This comment is up to your usual nonsensical standard; in other words
> > > > > it's just invented fantasy. Boltzmann did indeed commit suicide, but
> > > > > not because people were mocking him.
> > > > It was obvious to those around him, years before his death,
> > > > that Boltzmann suffered from severe bipolar disorder.
> > > > There was no known treatment at the time.
> > > > > No doubt there were crackpots in
> > > > > Vienna in Boltzmann's day who couldn't understand what he said and
> > > > > mocked it, but physicists of the time took it seriously and didn't
> > > > > "mock" him.
> > > > That is too simple. Boltzmann had to put up with a professional crackpot
> > > > who had been appointed as his collegue,
> > > > as professor in the history and philosophy of science.
> > > > (yes, that was Ernst Mach)
> > > > Mach denied the existence of atoms, so all of statistical mechanics.
> > > > Boltzmann fled to Leipzig to avoid him.
> > > > He returned to Vienna only after Mach had retired.
> > > > > His lectures were very well attended and much admired.
> > > > Indeed. In particular so by his doctoral student, Paul Ehrenfest.
> > > > The Ehrenfests cleared up all the problems ('die Einwande')
> > > > with statistical mechanics in their Encyclopedia article.
> > > > (but only after B's untimely death)
> > > >
> > > > Jan
> > >
> > > Ehrenfest was a pathetic, depressive person with utter disbelief on his
> > > scientific abilities.
> > Ehrenfest was one of the masters of statististical mechanics
> > early in the 20th century. Actually he built most of the field,
> > on the foundations laid by Boltzmann.
> > FYI, The foundational Encyclopedia article of the Ehrenfests
> > is also available in English translation.
> > ===
> > The Conceptual Foundations of the Statistical Approach in Mechanics - P.
> > Ehrenfest, T. Ehrenfest (Dover, 1959)
> > ===
> >
> > And FYI, a masterpiece is a masterpiece whether or not
> > the creator of it believes in it.
> > But Ehrenfest knew what he had accomplished.
> > Just curious: do you also tear up a Van Gogh reproduction
> > whenever you can get your hands on one?
> >
> > As far as appreciation is concerned: Why do you think that none other
> > than H. A. Lorentz wanted to have Ehrenfest as his successor in Leyden?
> > [snip misinformation]
> > > BTW, all this is AVAILABLE in authorized biographies, which I have read
> > > avidly since ever.
> > So you don't know what 'authorized biography' means either.
> > You really are a pathetic case,
> >
> > Jan
>
> What would you know, fucking imbecile.
>
> Read this book, without moving your lips.
>
>
> The Strangest Man
> The Hidden Life of Paul Dirac, Mystic of the Atom
> Copyright © 2009 by Graham Farmelo, 558 Pages
> Published in Britain in 2009 by Faber and Faber Limited,
> Member of the Perseus Books Group
>
> EXCERPT FROM PAGE 230
> .............................
> The physicists at the meeting were in buoyant mood, though
> Ehrenfest was in poor spirits. Pudgy-faced and overweight, he was
> losing his grip on physics; for him, the succession of research reports
> were now a dispiriting agglomeration of detail. Convinced that his
> own work was worthless, he was looking for a new, less prominent
> academic position where he could motor in the slow lane.48 But he
> had not given up completely: during the discussions, he was still the
> unselfconscious inquisitor, pressing every speaker towards complete
> clarity, helping to draw attention away from irrelevancies and
> towards the saliencies of the new ideas. He was especially close to
> Dirac at this meeting, and they spent hours talking, keeping a few
> breaths away from the smokers' fug.49
>
> After the closing speeches in Bohr's home, the physicists put their
> luggage in the entrance hall and said their goodbyes.50 It was the
> usual bitter-sweet parting, but one delegate seemed especially out of
> sorts: Ehrenfest, about to catch a waiting taxi, looked flustered and
> unhappy. When Dirac thanked him for his contributions to the meeting,
> he was speechless and, apparently to avoid responding, hurried
> over to Bohr to say farewell.
>
> When he returned, Ehrenfest was bowing and sobbing: 'What you have
> said, coming from a young man like you, means very much to me
> because, maybe, a man such as I feels he has no force to live.'
> Ehrenfest should not be allowed to travel home alone, Dirac thought,
> but he changed his mind.

Ehrenfest was deeply distressed at that meeting.
He was in such a poor shape that even Dirac noticed.
If you had actually read the book rather than quote-mine it
you would have seen that Ehrenfest had already written his suicide note
a month before that Copenhagen meeting.
Yet he still made meaningful contributions to the discussions,
and had long and deep discussions with Dirac
that Dirac greatly apprecited. They really liked each other.

And hint: you really shouldn't let your silly prejudices
blind you this much,

Jan

On Tuesday, February 14, 2023 at 7:31:47 PM UTC-3, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, February 14, 2023 at 5:03:06 PM UTC-3, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Tuesday, February 14, 2023 at 12:27:46 PM UTC-3, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > > > Athel Cornish-Bowden <athe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > On 2023-02-13 14:06:10 +0000, Richard Hertz said:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Monday, February 13, 2023 at 6:59:16 AM UTC-3, patdolan wrote:
> > > > > > >> On Monday, February 13, 2023 at 1:36:04 AM UTC-8, Pentcho Valev:>
> > > > > > >> > Arthur Eddington: "The law that entropy always increases—the
> > > > > > >> Second Law of Thermodynamics
> > > > > > >> [ … ]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It's provoking and, on Planck's days, this theory drove Boltzmann to
> > > > > > > commit suicide, because everyone was mocking him.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This comment is up to your usual nonsensical standard; in other words
> > > > > > it's just invented fantasy. Boltzmann did indeed commit suicide, but
> > > > > > not because people were mocking him.
> > > > > It was obvious to those around him, years before his death,
> > > > > that Boltzmann suffered from severe bipolar disorder.
> > > > > There was no known treatment at the time.
> > > > > > No doubt there were crackpots in
> > > > > > Vienna in Boltzmann's day who couldn't understand what he said and
> > > > > > mocked it, but physicists of the time took it seriously and didn't
> > > > > > "mock" him.
> > > > > That is too simple. Boltzmann had to put up with a professional crackpot
> > > > > who had been appointed as his collegue,
> > > > > as professor in the history and philosophy of science.
> > > > > (yes, that was Ernst Mach)
> > > > > Mach denied the existence of atoms, so all of statistical mechanics.
> > > > > Boltzmann fled to Leipzig to avoid him.
> > > > > He returned to Vienna only after Mach had retired.
> > > > > > His lectures were very well attended and much admired.
> > > > > Indeed. In particular so by his doctoral student, Paul Ehrenfest.
> > > > > The Ehrenfests cleared up all the problems ('die Einwande')
> > > > > with statistical mechanics in their Encyclopedia article.
> > > > > (but only after B's untimely death)
> > > > >
> > > > > Jan
> > > >
> > > > Ehrenfest was a pathetic, depressive person with utter disbelief on his
> > > > scientific abilities.
> > > Ehrenfest was one of the masters of statististical mechanics
> > > early in the 20th century. Actually he built most of the field,
> > > on the foundations laid by Boltzmann.
> > > FYI, The foundational Encyclopedia article of the Ehrenfests
> > > is also available in English translation.
> > > ===
> > > The Conceptual Foundations of the Statistical Approach in Mechanics - P.
> > > Ehrenfest, T. Ehrenfest (Dover, 1959)
> > > ===
> > >
> > > And FYI, a masterpiece is a masterpiece whether or not
> > > the creator of it believes in it.
> > > But Ehrenfest knew what he had accomplished.
> > > Just curious: do you also tear up a Van Gogh reproduction
> > > whenever you can get your hands on one?
> > >
> > > As far as appreciation is concerned: Why do you think that none other
> > > than H. A. Lorentz wanted to have Ehrenfest as his successor in Leyden?
> > > [snip misinformation]
> > > > BTW, all this is AVAILABLE in authorized biographies, which I have read
> > > > avidly since ever.
> > > So you don't know what 'authorized biography' means either.
> > > You really are a pathetic case,
> > >
> > > Jan
> >
> > What would you know, fucking imbecile.
> >
> > Read this book, without moving your lips.
> >
> >
> > The Strangest Man
> > The Hidden Life of Paul Dirac, Mystic of the Atom
> > Copyright © 2009 by Graham Farmelo, 558 Pages
> > Published in Britain in 2009 by Faber and Faber Limited,
> > Member of the Perseus Books Group
> >
> > EXCERPT FROM PAGE 230
> > .............................
> > The physicists at the meeting were in buoyant mood, though
> > Ehrenfest was in poor spirits. Pudgy-faced and overweight, he was
> > losing his grip on physics; for him, the succession of research reports
> > were now a dispiriting agglomeration of detail. Convinced that his
> > own work was worthless, he was looking for a new, less prominent
> > academic position where he could motor in the slow lane.48 But he
> > had not given up completely: during the discussions, he was still the
> > unselfconscious inquisitor, pressing every speaker towards complete
> > clarity, helping to draw attention away from irrelevancies and
> > towards the saliencies of the new ideas. He was especially close to
> > Dirac at this meeting, and they spent hours talking, keeping a few
> > breaths away from the smokers' fug.49
> >
> > After the closing speeches in Bohr's home, the physicists put their
> > luggage in the entrance hall and said their goodbyes.50 It was the
> > usual bitter-sweet parting, but one delegate seemed especially out of
> > sorts: Ehrenfest, about to catch a waiting taxi, looked flustered and
> > unhappy. When Dirac thanked him for his contributions to the meeting,
> > he was speechless and, apparently to avoid responding, hurried
> > over to Bohr to say farewell.
> >
> > When he returned, Ehrenfest was bowing and sobbing: 'What you have
> > said, coming from a young man like you, means very much to me
> > because, maybe, a man such as I feels he has no force to live.'
> > Ehrenfest should not be allowed to travel home alone, Dirac thought,
> > but he changed his mind.
> Ehrenfest was deeply distressed at that meeting.
> He was in such a poor shape that even Dirac noticed.
> If you had actually read the book rather than quote-mine it
> you would have seen that Ehrenfest had already written his suicide note
> a month before that Copenhagen meeting.
> Yet he still made meaningful contributions to the discussions,
> and had long and deep discussions with Dirac
> that Dirac greatly apprecited. They really liked each other.
>
> And hint: you really shouldn't let your silly prejudices
> blind you this much,
>
> Jan

I have the book, which I read with pleasure in 2021.

It displays the long journey of a tortured, high-performing autistic person, tortured since being a child
by his father (who terrorized him) and by his mother (who took advantage of his position at Cambridge,
to satisfy her needs for luxury, travels and social acquaintances).

Dirac lived a MISERABLE LIFE and become DETACHED FROM HIS SURROUNDINGS, probably to NOT FEEL.

He was SELECTED to become the husband of a greedy pair of siblings, being the man a rather known scientist
and the woman a gold-digger, who lived well into the '90s. Dirac was an easy prey for any woman.

He got along with Ehrenfest well, because SOMEHOW, both were TORTURED SOULS..

Read the fucking book. It cost only $19.99.

https://www.amazon.com/Strangest-Man-Hidden-Dirac-Mystic/dp/0465022103

On Tuesday, February 14, 2023 at 7:31:47 PM UTC-3, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, February 14, 2023 at 5:03:06 PM UTC-3, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Tuesday, February 14, 2023 at 12:27:46 PM UTC-3, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > > > Athel Cornish-Bowden <athe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > On 2023-02-13 14:06:10 +0000, Richard Hertz said:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Monday, February 13, 2023 at 6:59:16 AM UTC-3, patdolan wrote:
> > > > > > >> On Monday, February 13, 2023 at 1:36:04 AM UTC-8, Pentcho Valev:>
> > > > > > >> > Arthur Eddington: "The law that entropy always increases—the
> > > > > > >> Second Law of Thermodynamics
> > > > > > >> [ … ]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It's provoking and, on Planck's days, this theory drove Boltzmann to
> > > > > > > commit suicide, because everyone was mocking him.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This comment is up to your usual nonsensical standard; in other words
> > > > > > it's just invented fantasy. Boltzmann did indeed commit suicide, but
> > > > > > not because people were mocking him.
> > > > > It was obvious to those around him, years before his death,
> > > > > that Boltzmann suffered from severe bipolar disorder.
> > > > > There was no known treatment at the time.
> > > > > > No doubt there were crackpots in
> > > > > > Vienna in Boltzmann's day who couldn't understand what he said and
> > > > > > mocked it, but physicists of the time took it seriously and didn't
> > > > > > "mock" him.
> > > > > That is too simple. Boltzmann had to put up with a professional crackpot
> > > > > who had been appointed as his collegue,
> > > > > as professor in the history and philosophy of science.
> > > > > (yes, that was Ernst Mach)
> > > > > Mach denied the existence of atoms, so all of statistical mechanics.
> > > > > Boltzmann fled to Leipzig to avoid him.
> > > > > He returned to Vienna only after Mach had retired.
> > > > > > His lectures were very well attended and much admired.
> > > > > Indeed. In particular so by his doctoral student, Paul Ehrenfest.
> > > > > The Ehrenfests cleared up all the problems ('die Einwande')
> > > > > with statistical mechanics in their Encyclopedia article.
> > > > > (but only after B's untimely death)
> > > > >
> > > > > Jan
> > > >
> > > > Ehrenfest was a pathetic, depressive person with utter disbelief on his
> > > > scientific abilities.
> > > Ehrenfest was one of the masters of statististical mechanics
> > > early in the 20th century. Actually he built most of the field,
> > > on the foundations laid by Boltzmann.
> > > FYI, The foundational Encyclopedia article of the Ehrenfests
> > > is also available in English translation.
> > > ===
> > > The Conceptual Foundations of the Statistical Approach in Mechanics - P.
> > > Ehrenfest, T. Ehrenfest (Dover, 1959)
> > > ===
> > >
> > > And FYI, a masterpiece is a masterpiece whether or not
> > > the creator of it believes in it.
> > > But Ehrenfest knew what he had accomplished.
> > > Just curious: do you also tear up a Van Gogh reproduction
> > > whenever you can get your hands on one?
> > >
> > > As far as appreciation is concerned: Why do you think that none other
> > > than H. A. Lorentz wanted to have Ehrenfest as his successor in Leyden?
> > > [snip misinformation]
> > > > BTW, all this is AVAILABLE in authorized biographies, which I have read
> > > > avidly since ever.
> > > So you don't know what 'authorized biography' means either.
> > > You really are a pathetic case,
> > >
> > > Jan
> >
> > What would you know, fucking imbecile.
> >
> > Read this book, without moving your lips.
> >
> >
> > The Strangest Man
> > The Hidden Life of Paul Dirac, Mystic of the Atom
> > Copyright © 2009 by Graham Farmelo, 558 Pages
> > Published in Britain in 2009 by Faber and Faber Limited,
> > Member of the Perseus Books Group
> >
> > EXCERPT FROM PAGE 230
> > .............................
> > The physicists at the meeting were in buoyant mood, though
> > Ehrenfest was in poor spirits. Pudgy-faced and overweight, he was
> > losing his grip on physics; for him, the succession of research reports
> > were now a dispiriting agglomeration of detail. Convinced that his
> > own work was worthless, he was looking for a new, less prominent
> > academic position where he could motor in the slow lane.48 But he
> > had not given up completely: during the discussions, he was still the
> > unselfconscious inquisitor, pressing every speaker towards complete
> > clarity, helping to draw attention away from irrelevancies and
> > towards the saliencies of the new ideas. He was especially close to
> > Dirac at this meeting, and they spent hours talking, keeping a few
> > breaths away from the smokers' fug.49
> >
> > After the closing speeches in Bohr's home, the physicists put their
> > luggage in the entrance hall and said their goodbyes.50 It was the
> > usual bitter-sweet parting, but one delegate seemed especially out of
> > sorts: Ehrenfest, about to catch a waiting taxi, looked flustered and
> > unhappy. When Dirac thanked him for his contributions to the meeting,
> > he was speechless and, apparently to avoid responding, hurried
> > over to Bohr to say farewell.
> >
> > When he returned, Ehrenfest was bowing and sobbing: 'What you have
> > said, coming from a young man like you, means very much to me
> > because, maybe, a man such as I feels he has no force to live.'
> > Ehrenfest should not be allowed to travel home alone, Dirac thought,
> > but he changed his mind.
> Ehrenfest was deeply distressed at that meeting.
> He was in such a poor shape that even Dirac noticed.
> If you had actually read the book rather than quote-mine it
> you would have seen that Ehrenfest had already written his suicide note
> a month before that Copenhagen meeting.
> Yet he still made meaningful contributions to the discussions,
> and had long and deep discussions with Dirac
> that Dirac greatly apprecited. They really liked each other.
>
> And hint: you really shouldn't let your silly prejudices
> blind you this much,
>
> Jan

I have the book, which I read with pleasure in 2021.

It displays the long journey of a tortured, high-performing autistic person, tortured since being a child
by his father (who terrorized him) and by his mother (who took advantage of his position at Cambridge,
to satisfy her needs for luxury, travels and social acquaintances).

Dirac lived a MISERABLE LIFE and become DETACHED FROM HIS SURROUNDINGS, probably to NOT FEEL.

He was SELECTED to become the husband of a greedy pair of siblings, being the man a rather known scientist
and the woman a gold-digger, who lived well into the '90s. Dirac was an easy prey for any woman.

He got along with Ehrenfest well, because SOMEHOW, both were TORTURED SOULS..

Read the fucking book. It cost only $19.99.

https://www.amazon.com/Strangest-Man-Hidden-Dirac-Mystic/dp/0465022103

Am 12.02.2023 um 18:48 schrieb Pentcho Valev:
> Athel Cornish-Bowden https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athel_Cornish-Bowden: "The concept of entropy was introduced to thermodynamics by Clausius, who deliberately chose an obscure term for it, wanting a word based on Greek roots that would sound similar to "energy". In this way he hoped to have a word that would mean the same to everyone regardless of their language, and, as Cooper [2] remarked, he succeeded in this way in finding a word that meant the same to everyone: NOTHING. From the beginning it proved a very difficult concept for other thermodynamicists, even including such accomplished mathematicians as Kelvin and Maxwell; Kelvin, indeed, despite his own major contributions to the subject, never appreciated the idea of entropy [3]. The difficulties that Clausius created have continued to the present day, with the result that a fundamental idea that is absolutely necessary for understanding the theory of chemical equilibria continues to give trouble, not only to students but al
so to scientists who need the concept for their work." https://www.beilstein-institut.de/download/712/cornishbowden_1.pdf
>
> Any thermodynamicist would (reluctantly) agree that, if the entropy is not a state function, then it is nonsense. But then the thermodynamicist would say that the entropy IS a state function and that this has been proved since Clausius. At the end the thermodynamicist might even quote Einstein and Eddington who highly valued the ideology of thermodynamics as a prototype of the ideology of relativity.
>
> Is there any proof that the entropy is a state function? There is none. Here is the oversimplified history of the entropy concept:
>
> If you define the entropy S as a quantity that obeys the equation dS=dQrev/T, you will find that, so defined, the entropy is a state function FOR AN IDEAL GAS: https://socratic.org/questions/is-entropy-state-function-how-prove-it Clausius decided to prove that the entropy (so defined) is a state function for ANY system. He based his proof on the assumption that any cycle can be disintegrated into small Carnot cycles, and nowadays this proof remains the only justification of "Entropy is a state function":
>
> "Carnot Cycles: S is a State Function. Any reversible cycle can be thought of as a collection of Carnot cycles - this approximation becomes exact as cycles become infinitesimal. Entropy change around an individual cycle is zero. Sum of entropy changes over all cycles is zero." http://mutuslab.cs.uwindsor.ca/schurko/introphyschem/lectures/240_l10.pdf
>
> The assumption on which "Entropy is a state function" is based - that any cycle can be subdivided into small Carnot cycles - is obviously false. An isothermal cycle CANNOT be subdivided into small Carnot cycles, a cycle involving the action of conservative forces CANNOT be subdivided into small Carnot cycles, etc. etc.
>
> Conclusion: The belief that the entropy is a state function is totally unjustified. Any time scientists use the term "entropy", they don't know what they are talking about:
>
> "My greatest concern was what to call it. I thought of calling it 'information', but the word was overly used, so I decided to call it 'uncertainty'. When I discussed it with John von Neumann, he had a better idea. Von Neumann told me, 'You should call it entropy, for two reasons: In the first place your uncertainty function has been used in statistical mechanics under that name, so it already has a name. In the second place, and more important, nobody knows what entropy really is, so in a debate you will always have the advantage." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_entropy
>
> Here Sabine Hossenfelder extensively uses the term "entropy" (nobody knows what entropy really is so she sounds very convincing):
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QnRpinVmo4&t=8s

The video is interesting.

But it is based on cepts which are known to be wrong.

For instance it uses the term 'particle' for the building blocks of
everything, while such particles are not real entities, but states of a
'quantum field' (whatever that is).

Also Boltzman's kinetic gas theory is just a simplification and not real.

The question is, why we do not experience backwards time, even if
particles are symmetric to both time directions.

Well, most likely we cannot see backwards time, because we call 'time'
what we experience and that is only forward time by definition.

But invisible things may exist, too, like 'antipodes' on the other side
of the planet. But these invisible things do not exist in our own 'time
domaine', which is composed from objects, which are visible.

Now imagine a time domaine, where time flows backwards and you would be
there.

If so, you would only observe forward time, because 'forward' is the
direction of local time everywhere.

Only in comparison to other domaines, invisible realms could be called
'domain of backwards time', because without comparison you cannot know,
what is forward and take the local time as forward, whereever that may
point to.

TH