Preface
Thermodynamic understanding of heat and energy is based on the mechanical
theory of heat (MTH), which resulted from the synthesis, by Kelvin and Clausius,
of Carnot’s theory of heat and the Mayer–Joule principle. Yet, there are no good
definitions for heat or energy in the current literature on thermodynamics. It is noted
that the advent of the entropy principle created the scientific stream of thermodynamics (a new stream branched off from its original source, the engineering stream)
and led to, in quick succession, the successful formulation of equilibrium thermodynamics. Here, I make the case that the impression of the Kelvin–Clausius
synthesis’ success is formed from its success in producing a coherent system of
equilibrium thermodynamics, not in resulting in a coherent system of engineering
stream of thermodynamics—the failure of which is reflected in the fact that engineering thermodynamics cannot even talk about heat and energy without
self-contradictions as well as fail to provide students of thermodynamics real grasp
on reversibility. This disquisition–essay makes the case that the uneven achievement of Joule, Kelvin, and Clausius is because they made the classic error of
equating correlation between heat and work to causality between heat and work,
and, as a result, prevented the (later) formulation of the entropy principle from
realizing its full power. While this error has been pointed out in a number of papers,
the authors of those papers advocated, for removing the error, a return to Carnot’s
theory as a caloric theory of heat. That was clearly a mistake: it is argued here that
Carnot’s theory is a relational theory of heat not an ontological theory and, in fact, it
can be made to incorporate with, ontologically, either the caloric theory or MTH.
This disquisition essay presents a relational, i.e., predicative, theory of heat
embracing fully MTH’s ontology for an updated understanding of heat, spontaneous energy conversion, and reversible-like processes.
Stony Brook, USA
Lin-Shu Wang
ix
Thermodynamic understanding of heat and energy is based on the mechanical
theory of heat (MTH), which resulted from the synthesis, by Kelvin and Clausius,
of Carnot’s theory of heat and the Mayer–Joule principle. Yet, there are no good
definitions for heat or energy in the current literature on thermodynamics. It is noted
that the advent of the entropy principle created the scientific stream of thermodynamics (a new stream branched off from its original source, the engineering stream)
and led to, in quick succession, the successful formulation of equilibrium thermodynamics. Here, I make the case that the impression of the Kelvin–Clausius
synthesis’ success is formed from its success in producing a coherent system of
equilibrium thermodynamics, not in resulting in a coherent system of engineering
stream of thermodynamics—the failure of which is reflected in the fact that engineering thermodynamics cannot even talk about heat and energy without
self-contradictions as well as fail to provide students of thermodynamics real grasp
on reversibility. This disquisition–essay makes the case that the uneven achievement of Joule, Kelvin, and Clausius is because they made the classic error of
equating correlation between heat and work to causality between heat and work,
and, as a result, prevented the (later) formulation of the entropy principle from
realizing its full power. While this error has been pointed out in a number of papers,
the authors of those papers advocated, for removing the error, a return to Carnot’s
theory as a caloric theory of heat. That was clearly a mistake: it is argued here that
Carnot’s theory is a relational theory of heat not an ontological theory and, in fact, it
can be made to incorporate with, ontologically, either the caloric theory or MTH.
This disquisition essay presents a relational, i.e., predicative, theory of heat
embracing fully MTH’s ontology for an updated understanding of heat, spontaneous energy conversion, and reversible-like processes.
Stony Brook, USA
Lin-Shu Wang
ix