From owner-biophysics@net.bio.net Mon Feb 16 22:00:00 1998
Path: biosci!agate!logbridge.uoregon.edu!newsfeed.direct.ca!news-peer.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!Sprint!worldnet.att.net!news.u.washington.edu!fujimoto
From: fujimoto@u.washington.edu (Bryant Fujimoto)
Newsgroups: bionet.biophysics
Subject: Re: Boltzmann's versus thermodynamic entropy
Date: 17 Feb 1998 21:32:43 GMT
Organization: University of Washington
Lines: 24
Distribution: bionet
Message-ID: <6ccvlr$3pk$1@nntp3.u.washington.edu>
References: <6cbibd$5m0@mserv1.dl.ac.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: homer18.u.washington.edu
X-Trace: nntp3.u.washington.edu 887751163 3892 (None) 140.142.64.1
X-Complaints-To: help@cac.washington.edu
NNTP-Posting-User: fujimoto

Pentcho Valev <RUMYM@BGEARN.ACAD.BG> writes:

>Andras, I do not see any contradiction between my statement and your
>explanation, so there is certainly nothing which I don't understand at
>that level. Still I find it awkward to accept that, as the system
>(rather, only D) expands spontaneously and never returns to the initial
>point, it moves from a MORE probable to a LESS probable state. Your
>explanation is formally correct but it contradicts my intuition.

Your intuition is wrong.  You haven't even proved which way the
heat will flow.  How do you know heat will flow out of the chamber?
You haven't accounted for the heat necessary to maintain the 
temperature as you expand your system.

>Unfortunately I am incompetent in statistical mechanics and cannot offer
>a more reasonable objection. Still my conclusion remains valid: The
>two entropies may coincide but ONLY IF SYSTEMS CAN SPONTANEOUSLY MOVE
>FROM A MORE PROBABLE TO A LESS PROBABLE STATE.

If your conclusion is valid, then why is it contradicted by every
test ever made to compare statisical mechanical and thermodynamic
entropies?  

Bryant

.