This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Thermodynamics article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies |
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 90 days ![]() |
![]() | Thermodynamics was one of the Natural sciences good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Delisted good article |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
I have undone a sequence of edits that ended here.
My reason is that the edits are based on research reported in journals, not on reliable and established textbooks. Wikipedia is not a news reporter. It is an encyclopaedia of established principles and facts.
The edits that I removed verge on propaganda or promotion of a viewpoint. Thermodynamics is an established body of principle and fact. Chjoaygame (talk) 08:41, 3 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
Dear Chjoaygame:
While the recent additions are not perfect, they are in line with the spirit of Wikipedia in crowd-sourcing information on a topic. Please restore the edits and work to improve them to be suitable for the page. You could even mark some of the sections as needing additional work. Thank you Jeffreyjgray (talk) 03:11, 20 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
I want to post here that I reverted a small series of edits by an user who changed the sign convention on the First Law section, on the basis that many articles on thermodynamics use the minus sign convention, switching only to the plus one for srticles on thermochemistry and associated topics. Changing the sign in this article shouldn't be done unilaterally, since the wiki needs to keep consistency on the sign that is being chosen, and only this article was having the minus sign switched to plus. --206.62.162.123 (talk) 00:16, 18 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
Please publish answer. 117.233.90.234 (talk) 13:13, 26 April 2022 (UTC)Reply
I wanna establish a post where everyone can share with each other the problems of thermodynamics they are stuck in and get help. 103.152.34.131 (talk) 00:40, 10 October 2022 (UTC)Reply
The article should have a section about criticisms and limitations of the Theory. First, the Laws of Thermodynamics are the formal foundation of CLASSICAL Thermodynamics (CT). Classical has been superseded by Statistical Thermodynamics (and quantum mechanics) in our understanding of the real world. (Which isn't to say that Classical has no utility.) Second, CT is, for the most part, useful for near-equilibrium systems. Third, perfect thermal equilibrium can not be obtained (at least, not locally). Fourth, CT doesn't deal with rates of change and (for the most part) time. Since both rates of change and time are of *Fundamental* importance in our understanding of, and descriptions of, the world, CT is, at best, a useful approximation only for certain limited situations. The article claims CT is "critical" to economics, which is laughable - so is gravity, with this thinking. (Granted, CT is useful in describing energy efficiencies, which has clear economic use.) The article mentions both equilibrium and absolute zero - but neither are "real" (obtainable) states. The article claims entropy is minimal at 0K, but this has two problems: a) 0k is unobtainable and b) it isn't the case that as 0K is approached that entropy necessarily decreases (as is implied) - except in the (unobtainable (arguably)) limit of infinite time. The Zeroth Law, as given here, has obviously been taken from some "formal" (in the mathematical/logical meaning) system. If A=B and B=C then A=C does NOT necessarily apply to the operands of > or <. Nor do I agree that the 0th Law stated here is correct. I prefer the 0th law to be something like 'For any separate macroscopic system or object, a property exists called Temperature which will, absent perturbations, become uniform with heat energy flowing from higher temperature regions to lower.' It should be mentioned that neutrinos, for example, can't be kept out of any so-called "closed" or "isolated" system (there are ~10^7 per cm^2 per second at Earth's surface). Gravity has a significant (for some systems) gradient and can't be shielded. Black body radiation can't be eliminated. (Meaning there are no true "isolated" systems). And then there's Dark Matter and Dark Energy. Suffice to say that these can be ignored for most applications of CT. I believe that Temperature, Energy and Entropy are 'elementary' concepts in CT. That is, they can't be defined *in* CT, but must be taken as given. Anyway, these are some, but by no means all, of the limitations of CT. I think it would be useful to have a section discussing them.40.142.183.146 (talk) 11:29, 12 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
With care, I think something could/should be written (I am not volunteering). There was an article with that name which I have renamed to Thermal transport in nanostructures, I think an early editor thought that thermodynamics was short for "thermal dynamics". N.B., the transport page also needs work as it only goes up to 2005. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:03, 18 March 2024 (UTC)Reply