No-go theorem and 2nd law of thermo












1














As defined here, there exist several no-go theorems in theoretical physics. These theorems are statements of impossibility.



The second law of thermodynamics may be stated in several ways, some of which describe the impossibility of certain situations.



The question is: if we view the second law of thermo. as a theorem (that is, a proposition that can be either proved to be true or untrue), then is it a no-go theorem?



I understand that the second law of thermo. is a physical "law" in the sense that it is axiomatic in thermodynamics (i.e. we don't prove newton's laws in classical mechanics), however one can "prove" the second law of thermo. from statistical physics considerations. So, if you'd rather not call the second law of thermo a "theorem," then perhaps it is a "no-go law" ?



Perhaps I'm missing a key or subtle point here, all input is very much appreciated. It may be just a matter of terminology, but I'm curious either way.










share|cite|improve this question



























    1














    As defined here, there exist several no-go theorems in theoretical physics. These theorems are statements of impossibility.



    The second law of thermodynamics may be stated in several ways, some of which describe the impossibility of certain situations.



    The question is: if we view the second law of thermo. as a theorem (that is, a proposition that can be either proved to be true or untrue), then is it a no-go theorem?



    I understand that the second law of thermo. is a physical "law" in the sense that it is axiomatic in thermodynamics (i.e. we don't prove newton's laws in classical mechanics), however one can "prove" the second law of thermo. from statistical physics considerations. So, if you'd rather not call the second law of thermo a "theorem," then perhaps it is a "no-go law" ?



    Perhaps I'm missing a key or subtle point here, all input is very much appreciated. It may be just a matter of terminology, but I'm curious either way.










    share|cite|improve this question

























      1












      1








      1







      As defined here, there exist several no-go theorems in theoretical physics. These theorems are statements of impossibility.



      The second law of thermodynamics may be stated in several ways, some of which describe the impossibility of certain situations.



      The question is: if we view the second law of thermo. as a theorem (that is, a proposition that can be either proved to be true or untrue), then is it a no-go theorem?



      I understand that the second law of thermo. is a physical "law" in the sense that it is axiomatic in thermodynamics (i.e. we don't prove newton's laws in classical mechanics), however one can "prove" the second law of thermo. from statistical physics considerations. So, if you'd rather not call the second law of thermo a "theorem," then perhaps it is a "no-go law" ?



      Perhaps I'm missing a key or subtle point here, all input is very much appreciated. It may be just a matter of terminology, but I'm curious either way.










      share|cite|improve this question













      As defined here, there exist several no-go theorems in theoretical physics. These theorems are statements of impossibility.



      The second law of thermodynamics may be stated in several ways, some of which describe the impossibility of certain situations.



      The question is: if we view the second law of thermo. as a theorem (that is, a proposition that can be either proved to be true or untrue), then is it a no-go theorem?



      I understand that the second law of thermo. is a physical "law" in the sense that it is axiomatic in thermodynamics (i.e. we don't prove newton's laws in classical mechanics), however one can "prove" the second law of thermo. from statistical physics considerations. So, if you'd rather not call the second law of thermo a "theorem," then perhaps it is a "no-go law" ?



      Perhaps I'm missing a key or subtle point here, all input is very much appreciated. It may be just a matter of terminology, but I'm curious either way.







      thermodynamics statistical-mechanics terminology laws-of-physics






      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question











      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question










      asked 2 hours ago









      N. Steinle

      1,216113




      1,216113






















          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          2














          From the perspective of statistical mechanics, the second law is neither an axiom nor a strict no-go theorem. It's a practical no-go theorem in the same sense that getting $10^{100}$ heads when flipping a fair coin $10^{100}$ times will never happen. It's not strictly impossible (in contrast to the strict impossibility of solving $x^3+y^3=z^3$ with positives integers $x,y,z$), but you can rest assured that it will never happen. A more complete answer is given here:



          Explain the second principle of thermodynamics without the notion of entropy






          share|cite|improve this answer























          • It might fit the context of thermo better to say that after $10^{100}$ flips, you’ll never see an average different from 0.50000000000.
            – Chemomechanics
            46 mins ago












          • @Chemomechanics Yes, I agree. Your version better illustrates why statistical mechanics / thermodynamics work so well.
            – Dan Yand
            18 mins ago



















          1














          The reciprocal status of Thermodynamics and Statistical Mechanics is not a basic law of Physics and there is space for different point of views. However there are a few facts which should be borne in mind.




          1. A strict correspondence between Statistical Mechanics results and Thermodynamics emerges only after taking the so-called thermodynamic limit, i.e. extrapolating finite size results to the limit of an infinite system. In this limit, the practical impossibility Dan Yand is referring in his answer becomes a real impossibility (exactly zero probability). However, we have to notice that the proof depends on the specific interaction law.

          2. Statistical Mechanics is an almost (see point 4) successful attempt to derive Thermodynamics laws from basic Mechanics and from models of the interaction laws between individual elementary degrees of freedom. However, the basic laws of Thermodynamics do not depend neither on Statistical Mechanics assumptions, nor on any modeling of interactions.

          3. Thermodynamics laws (like the principles of Mechanics or other basic laws in physics) do not have the same role as axioms in mathematical theories. The fundamental difference is in the fact that they embody a huge number of experimental results. So for example, and referring to the specific question, the second principle can be seen as a "no-go" principle, i.e. it encodes in a short sentences (whose exact formulation may vary) all the failed experimental attempts to build a perpetual motion machine of the second kind.

          4. There are systems whose average behavior is better described by a finite number of degrees of freedom (no thermodynamic limit). For such systems it is not possible to prove something fully equivalent to the second principle.


          In conclusion, taking into account only the previous points 1 and 2, and confining the analysis only to situations where no problem is expected from thermodynamic limit, one could see the 2nd law as a theorem. But keeping separate Thermodynamic laws from Statistical Mechanics allows to use the second law even in cases where the Statistical Mechanics machinery in not fully under control.






          share|cite|improve this answer





















            Your Answer





            StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
            return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
            StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
            StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
            });
            });
            }, "mathjax-editing");

            StackExchange.ready(function() {
            var channelOptions = {
            tags: "".split(" "),
            id: "151"
            };
            initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

            StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
            // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
            if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
            StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
            createEditor();
            });
            }
            else {
            createEditor();
            }
            });

            function createEditor() {
            StackExchange.prepareEditor({
            heartbeatType: 'answer',
            autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
            convertImagesToLinks: false,
            noModals: true,
            showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
            reputationToPostImages: null,
            bindNavPrevention: true,
            postfix: "",
            imageUploader: {
            brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
            contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
            allowUrls: true
            },
            noCode: true, onDemand: true,
            discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
            ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
            });


            }
            });














            draft saved

            draft discarded


















            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f450313%2fno-go-theorem-and-2nd-law-of-thermo%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown

























            2 Answers
            2






            active

            oldest

            votes








            2 Answers
            2






            active

            oldest

            votes









            active

            oldest

            votes






            active

            oldest

            votes









            2














            From the perspective of statistical mechanics, the second law is neither an axiom nor a strict no-go theorem. It's a practical no-go theorem in the same sense that getting $10^{100}$ heads when flipping a fair coin $10^{100}$ times will never happen. It's not strictly impossible (in contrast to the strict impossibility of solving $x^3+y^3=z^3$ with positives integers $x,y,z$), but you can rest assured that it will never happen. A more complete answer is given here:



            Explain the second principle of thermodynamics without the notion of entropy






            share|cite|improve this answer























            • It might fit the context of thermo better to say that after $10^{100}$ flips, you’ll never see an average different from 0.50000000000.
              – Chemomechanics
              46 mins ago












            • @Chemomechanics Yes, I agree. Your version better illustrates why statistical mechanics / thermodynamics work so well.
              – Dan Yand
              18 mins ago
















            2














            From the perspective of statistical mechanics, the second law is neither an axiom nor a strict no-go theorem. It's a practical no-go theorem in the same sense that getting $10^{100}$ heads when flipping a fair coin $10^{100}$ times will never happen. It's not strictly impossible (in contrast to the strict impossibility of solving $x^3+y^3=z^3$ with positives integers $x,y,z$), but you can rest assured that it will never happen. A more complete answer is given here:



            Explain the second principle of thermodynamics without the notion of entropy






            share|cite|improve this answer























            • It might fit the context of thermo better to say that after $10^{100}$ flips, you’ll never see an average different from 0.50000000000.
              – Chemomechanics
              46 mins ago












            • @Chemomechanics Yes, I agree. Your version better illustrates why statistical mechanics / thermodynamics work so well.
              – Dan Yand
              18 mins ago














            2












            2








            2






            From the perspective of statistical mechanics, the second law is neither an axiom nor a strict no-go theorem. It's a practical no-go theorem in the same sense that getting $10^{100}$ heads when flipping a fair coin $10^{100}$ times will never happen. It's not strictly impossible (in contrast to the strict impossibility of solving $x^3+y^3=z^3$ with positives integers $x,y,z$), but you can rest assured that it will never happen. A more complete answer is given here:



            Explain the second principle of thermodynamics without the notion of entropy






            share|cite|improve this answer














            From the perspective of statistical mechanics, the second law is neither an axiom nor a strict no-go theorem. It's a practical no-go theorem in the same sense that getting $10^{100}$ heads when flipping a fair coin $10^{100}$ times will never happen. It's not strictly impossible (in contrast to the strict impossibility of solving $x^3+y^3=z^3$ with positives integers $x,y,z$), but you can rest assured that it will never happen. A more complete answer is given here:



            Explain the second principle of thermodynamics without the notion of entropy







            share|cite|improve this answer














            share|cite|improve this answer



            share|cite|improve this answer








            edited 2 hours ago

























            answered 2 hours ago









            Dan Yand

            6,0791627




            6,0791627












            • It might fit the context of thermo better to say that after $10^{100}$ flips, you’ll never see an average different from 0.50000000000.
              – Chemomechanics
              46 mins ago












            • @Chemomechanics Yes, I agree. Your version better illustrates why statistical mechanics / thermodynamics work so well.
              – Dan Yand
              18 mins ago


















            • It might fit the context of thermo better to say that after $10^{100}$ flips, you’ll never see an average different from 0.50000000000.
              – Chemomechanics
              46 mins ago












            • @Chemomechanics Yes, I agree. Your version better illustrates why statistical mechanics / thermodynamics work so well.
              – Dan Yand
              18 mins ago
















            It might fit the context of thermo better to say that after $10^{100}$ flips, you’ll never see an average different from 0.50000000000.
            – Chemomechanics
            46 mins ago






            It might fit the context of thermo better to say that after $10^{100}$ flips, you’ll never see an average different from 0.50000000000.
            – Chemomechanics
            46 mins ago














            @Chemomechanics Yes, I agree. Your version better illustrates why statistical mechanics / thermodynamics work so well.
            – Dan Yand
            18 mins ago




            @Chemomechanics Yes, I agree. Your version better illustrates why statistical mechanics / thermodynamics work so well.
            – Dan Yand
            18 mins ago











            1














            The reciprocal status of Thermodynamics and Statistical Mechanics is not a basic law of Physics and there is space for different point of views. However there are a few facts which should be borne in mind.




            1. A strict correspondence between Statistical Mechanics results and Thermodynamics emerges only after taking the so-called thermodynamic limit, i.e. extrapolating finite size results to the limit of an infinite system. In this limit, the practical impossibility Dan Yand is referring in his answer becomes a real impossibility (exactly zero probability). However, we have to notice that the proof depends on the specific interaction law.

            2. Statistical Mechanics is an almost (see point 4) successful attempt to derive Thermodynamics laws from basic Mechanics and from models of the interaction laws between individual elementary degrees of freedom. However, the basic laws of Thermodynamics do not depend neither on Statistical Mechanics assumptions, nor on any modeling of interactions.

            3. Thermodynamics laws (like the principles of Mechanics or other basic laws in physics) do not have the same role as axioms in mathematical theories. The fundamental difference is in the fact that they embody a huge number of experimental results. So for example, and referring to the specific question, the second principle can be seen as a "no-go" principle, i.e. it encodes in a short sentences (whose exact formulation may vary) all the failed experimental attempts to build a perpetual motion machine of the second kind.

            4. There are systems whose average behavior is better described by a finite number of degrees of freedom (no thermodynamic limit). For such systems it is not possible to prove something fully equivalent to the second principle.


            In conclusion, taking into account only the previous points 1 and 2, and confining the analysis only to situations where no problem is expected from thermodynamic limit, one could see the 2nd law as a theorem. But keeping separate Thermodynamic laws from Statistical Mechanics allows to use the second law even in cases where the Statistical Mechanics machinery in not fully under control.






            share|cite|improve this answer


























              1














              The reciprocal status of Thermodynamics and Statistical Mechanics is not a basic law of Physics and there is space for different point of views. However there are a few facts which should be borne in mind.




              1. A strict correspondence between Statistical Mechanics results and Thermodynamics emerges only after taking the so-called thermodynamic limit, i.e. extrapolating finite size results to the limit of an infinite system. In this limit, the practical impossibility Dan Yand is referring in his answer becomes a real impossibility (exactly zero probability). However, we have to notice that the proof depends on the specific interaction law.

              2. Statistical Mechanics is an almost (see point 4) successful attempt to derive Thermodynamics laws from basic Mechanics and from models of the interaction laws between individual elementary degrees of freedom. However, the basic laws of Thermodynamics do not depend neither on Statistical Mechanics assumptions, nor on any modeling of interactions.

              3. Thermodynamics laws (like the principles of Mechanics or other basic laws in physics) do not have the same role as axioms in mathematical theories. The fundamental difference is in the fact that they embody a huge number of experimental results. So for example, and referring to the specific question, the second principle can be seen as a "no-go" principle, i.e. it encodes in a short sentences (whose exact formulation may vary) all the failed experimental attempts to build a perpetual motion machine of the second kind.

              4. There are systems whose average behavior is better described by a finite number of degrees of freedom (no thermodynamic limit). For such systems it is not possible to prove something fully equivalent to the second principle.


              In conclusion, taking into account only the previous points 1 and 2, and confining the analysis only to situations where no problem is expected from thermodynamic limit, one could see the 2nd law as a theorem. But keeping separate Thermodynamic laws from Statistical Mechanics allows to use the second law even in cases where the Statistical Mechanics machinery in not fully under control.






              share|cite|improve this answer
























                1












                1








                1






                The reciprocal status of Thermodynamics and Statistical Mechanics is not a basic law of Physics and there is space for different point of views. However there are a few facts which should be borne in mind.




                1. A strict correspondence between Statistical Mechanics results and Thermodynamics emerges only after taking the so-called thermodynamic limit, i.e. extrapolating finite size results to the limit of an infinite system. In this limit, the practical impossibility Dan Yand is referring in his answer becomes a real impossibility (exactly zero probability). However, we have to notice that the proof depends on the specific interaction law.

                2. Statistical Mechanics is an almost (see point 4) successful attempt to derive Thermodynamics laws from basic Mechanics and from models of the interaction laws between individual elementary degrees of freedom. However, the basic laws of Thermodynamics do not depend neither on Statistical Mechanics assumptions, nor on any modeling of interactions.

                3. Thermodynamics laws (like the principles of Mechanics or other basic laws in physics) do not have the same role as axioms in mathematical theories. The fundamental difference is in the fact that they embody a huge number of experimental results. So for example, and referring to the specific question, the second principle can be seen as a "no-go" principle, i.e. it encodes in a short sentences (whose exact formulation may vary) all the failed experimental attempts to build a perpetual motion machine of the second kind.

                4. There are systems whose average behavior is better described by a finite number of degrees of freedom (no thermodynamic limit). For such systems it is not possible to prove something fully equivalent to the second principle.


                In conclusion, taking into account only the previous points 1 and 2, and confining the analysis only to situations where no problem is expected from thermodynamic limit, one could see the 2nd law as a theorem. But keeping separate Thermodynamic laws from Statistical Mechanics allows to use the second law even in cases where the Statistical Mechanics machinery in not fully under control.






                share|cite|improve this answer












                The reciprocal status of Thermodynamics and Statistical Mechanics is not a basic law of Physics and there is space for different point of views. However there are a few facts which should be borne in mind.




                1. A strict correspondence between Statistical Mechanics results and Thermodynamics emerges only after taking the so-called thermodynamic limit, i.e. extrapolating finite size results to the limit of an infinite system. In this limit, the practical impossibility Dan Yand is referring in his answer becomes a real impossibility (exactly zero probability). However, we have to notice that the proof depends on the specific interaction law.

                2. Statistical Mechanics is an almost (see point 4) successful attempt to derive Thermodynamics laws from basic Mechanics and from models of the interaction laws between individual elementary degrees of freedom. However, the basic laws of Thermodynamics do not depend neither on Statistical Mechanics assumptions, nor on any modeling of interactions.

                3. Thermodynamics laws (like the principles of Mechanics or other basic laws in physics) do not have the same role as axioms in mathematical theories. The fundamental difference is in the fact that they embody a huge number of experimental results. So for example, and referring to the specific question, the second principle can be seen as a "no-go" principle, i.e. it encodes in a short sentences (whose exact formulation may vary) all the failed experimental attempts to build a perpetual motion machine of the second kind.

                4. There are systems whose average behavior is better described by a finite number of degrees of freedom (no thermodynamic limit). For such systems it is not possible to prove something fully equivalent to the second principle.


                In conclusion, taking into account only the previous points 1 and 2, and confining the analysis only to situations where no problem is expected from thermodynamic limit, one could see the 2nd law as a theorem. But keeping separate Thermodynamic laws from Statistical Mechanics allows to use the second law even in cases where the Statistical Mechanics machinery in not fully under control.







                share|cite|improve this answer












                share|cite|improve this answer



                share|cite|improve this answer










                answered 48 mins ago









                GiorgioP

                1,609213




                1,609213






























                    draft saved

                    draft discarded




















































                    Thanks for contributing an answer to Physics Stack Exchange!


                    • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                    But avoid



                    • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                    • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                    Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                    To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





                    Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


                    Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


                    • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                    But avoid



                    • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                    • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                    To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                    draft saved


                    draft discarded














                    StackExchange.ready(
                    function () {
                    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f450313%2fno-go-theorem-and-2nd-law-of-thermo%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                    }
                    );

                    Post as a guest















                    Required, but never shown





















































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown

































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown







                    Popular posts from this blog

                    404 Error Contact Form 7 ajax form submitting

                    How to know if a Active Directory user can login interactively

                    TypeError: fit_transform() missing 1 required positional argument: 'X'