Re: [Fis]: Re: Distribution of Energy is (not) the same as disorder?

Michel

An International Treaty on the Definition of
"Disorder" should be created to define "discorder",
"information", 'symmetry", "entropy", etc. or give this
task to the same international agency in Paris that keeps the
prototype of the standar 1 meter long metal bar to give a standard
definition: to say the Leonardo da Vinci's Mona Lisa has
a disorder of 1, in collaboration with Musee du Louvre.

Have a nice weekend!

Shu-Kun

--
Dr. Shu-Kun Lin
Molecular Diversity Preservation International (MDPI)
Matthaeusstrasse 11, CH-4057 Basel, Switzerland
Tel. +41 61 683 7734 (office)
Tel. +41 79 322 3379 (mobile)
Fax +41 61 302 8918
E-mail: lin@mdpi.org
http://www.mdpi.org/lin
Michel Petitjean wrote:
> To: "fis-listas.unizar.es" <fis@listas.unizar.es>
> Subj: [Fis]: Re: "Distribution of Energy is (not) the same as "disorder"?
> 
> Dear Jerry, dear FISers,
> 
> Thanks, Jerry, for this very interesting question.
> In fact there are several questions here:
> (a) Is "Distribution of Energy" the same as "disorder" ?
> (b) Is entropy the same as "Distribution of Energy" ?
> (c) Is entropy the same as "disorder" ?
> 
> Let us look first to "disorder". There was a thread initiated on the
> FIS forum the 28 April 2004: <<[Fis] definition(s) of order/disorder ?>>.
> It seems from the messages posted about this topic, that the "disorder"
> concept is still undefined, and thus it is an intuitive concept, despite
> it is useful for those who teach thermodynamics. As noted by Jerry in this
> forum the 24 May 2004, the situation is different for "order", since the
> mathematicians have a definition for this term: see partial ordering,
> total ordering,... But in thermodynamics, this definition is not
> suitable.
> It follows that we cannot answer "yes" to questions (a) and (c),
> or, rather, (a) and (c) cannot be answered until somebody exhibits
> a rigorous definition of "disorder".
> 
> Let us look now to (b): "Distribution of Energy" is defined from
> two known terms: "Energy", in the sense of Newtonian mechanics
> (we could take a more advanced definition, but I prefer restrict
> here to simple thermodynamic systems), and "distribution", in the
> sense of probability theory, or at least in the Newtonian mechanics
> sense (e.g., for a mass distribution, the total mass has to be unity
> to be modelized by a probability distribution).
> It follows that answering "yes" to (b) assumes that the thermodynamic
> system is modelized such that the energy has indeed a <<distrbution>>,
> varying along the time (then come problems related to equilibrium,...)
> I observed that many people (scientists or not) used probabilistic
> terms in a non adequate manner: e.g. probability that it rains today,
> etc.. (I do it myself sometimes). Alas, it happens sometimes also
> in a more scientific context. Thus, many care should be carried
> to ensure that the "distribution of Energy" makes indeed sense.
> Anyway, if the probabilistic tools are adequately used in the
> model, relating entropy to distribution of energy may be
> successful.
> 
> Jerry asks also:
> 
>>How would this change of semantics influence the philosophy of science a=
>>ssociated with the concept of entropy?
> 
> 
> Here it is much more difficult to reply. I just would remark that
> even mathematicians use non adequate vocabulary since a long:
> e.g., the Dirac delta function is not a function, the random variables
> are not variables, etc... So I thank the thermodynamicians for
> their efforts done to clarify the teaching of their science, which
> I found to be the more difficult that I have learned when I was
> student.
> 
> Michel Petitjean                      Email: petitjean@itodys.jussieu.fr
> Editor-in-Chief of Entropy                   entropy@mdpi.org
> ITODYS (CNRS, UMR 7086)                      ptitjean@ccr.jussieu.fr
> 1 rue Guy de la Brosse                Phone: +33 (0)1 44 27 48 57
> 75005 Paris, France.                  FAX  : +33 (0)1 44 27 68 14
> http://www.mdpi.net/entropy           http://www.mdpi.org/entropy
> http://petitjeanmichel.free.fr/itoweb.petitjean.html
> ....................................................................
> 
>>From fis-bounces@listas.unizar.es Thu Sep  9 20:36:40 2004
>>Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2004 11:35:18 -0700
>>From: Jerry_Lr_ Chandler <jerry_lr_chandler@mac.com>
>>To: fis@listas.unizar.es
>>Subject: [Fis] "Distribution of Energy is (not) the same as "disorder"?
>>
>>Dear Colleagues:
>>
>>I would like to open an academic aspect of the entropy issues.
>>
>>I recently rec'd the email copied below.   It is being circulated among l=
>>eaders of the chemical community.
>>
>>The objective of the dialogue is to substitute the words  "distribution o=
>>f energy"  in the place of "disorder" in developing a semantic terminolog=
>>y for entropy.  The arguments for this substitution are given in publicat=
>>ions that are referenced.  Many of these are available on line.
>>
>>I ask the following questions:
>>
>>What are the views of experts on entropy on this semantic substitution?
>>
>>(No syntactical change is proposed. The general problem of relating synta=
>>x to semantics extends across the sciences and includes mathematics and m=
>>odels.)
>>
>>How would this change of semantics influence the philosophy of science a=
>>ssociated with the concept of entropy?
>>
>>Cheers
>>
>>Jerry LR Chandler
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>-----Original Message-----=20
>>From: CHEMICAL INFORMATION SOURCES DISCUSSION LIST=20
>>[mailto:CHMINF-L@LISTSERV.INDIANA.EDU]On Behalf Of=20
>>dzrlib@LIBRARY.CALTECH.EDU=20
>>Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2004 1:10 PM=20
>>To: CHMINF-L@LISTSERV.INDIANA.EDU=20
>>Subject: Entropy is NOT disorder ...=20
>>. .  . snipped . . .
> 
> _______________________________________________
> fis mailing list
> fis@listas.unizar.es
> http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
> 
> 
> 
_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis