Lumifer comments on Entropy and Temperature - Less Wrong

26 Post author: spxtr 17 December 2014 08:04AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (96)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: B_For_Bandana 17 December 2014 08:33:07PM *  7 points [-]

An alternate phrasing (which I think makes it clearer) would be: "the distinction between mechanical and thermal energy is in the mind, and because we associate temperature with thermal but not mechanical energy, it follows that two observers of the same system can interpret it as having two different temperatures without inconsistency."

In other words, if you fall into the sun, your atoms will be strewn far and wide, yes, but your atoms will be equally strewn far and wide if you fall into an ice-cold mechanical woodchipper. The distinction between the types of energy used for the scattering process is what is subjective.

Comment author: Lumifer 17 December 2014 08:48:39PM *  1 point [-]

the distinction between mechanical and thermal energy is in the mind

The high-school definition of temperature as "a measure of the average kinetic energy of the particles" (see the grandparent comment) actually erases that distinction as it defines temperature through kinetic (mechanical) energy.

Comment author: B_For_Bandana 17 December 2014 09:28:06PM 1 point [-]

I didn't read your comment carefully enough. Yes, we agree.

Comment author: B_For_Bandana 17 December 2014 09:09:28PM *  0 points [-]

Right, but we don't think of a tennis ball falling in a vacuum as gaining thermal energy or rising in temperature. It is "only" gaining mechanical kinetic energy; a high school student would say that "this is not a thermal energy problem," even though the ball does have an average kinetic energy (kinetic energy, divided by 1 ball). But if temperature of something that we do think of as hot is just average kinetic energy, then there is a sense in which the entire universe is "not a thermal energy problem."

Comment author: Lumifer 17 December 2014 09:34:54PM 0 points [-]

but we don't think of a tennis ball falling in a vacuum as gaining thermal energy or rising in temperature.

That's because temperature is a characteristic of a multi-particle system. One single particle has energy, a large set of many particles has temperature.

And still speaking of high-school physics, conversion between thermal and kinetic energy is trivially easy and happens all the time around us.

Comment author: jbay 24 December 2014 02:30:49AM 0 points [-]

A tennis ball is a multi-particle system; however, all of the particles are accelerating more or less in unison while the ball free-falls. Nonetheless, it isn't usually considered to be increasing in temperature, because the entropy isn't increasing much as it falls.