The Limits of Science

Re:The Limits of Science by GTP on Wednesday October 23, 2019 @06:48AM (#21333240)

This is the first time I see temperature defined as "an emergent property of molecular motion". I agree that this definition is vague, but I've always seen the temperature of an object defined as the medium kinetic energy of the particles that form that object, and I don't see this definition as a vague one at all. Now we should see if and how this medium kinetic energy can affect a person's health, but this is a different problem (and one that has been already studied and afaik produced not too vague results).

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The Limits of Science by nighthawk648 on Wednesday October 23, 2019 @07:03AM (#21333321)

Well I think it’s vague because it’s not accurately representing what is going on. Is that average kinetic energy even distributed throughout the system or can it be isolated to specific moving points of the system? Ie some particles in the north most part of the system have this energy and are moving around the system. Or even only the particles in the north have the energy.

Feynman said it best that with each question you keep going back and back and back trying to exemplify through allusion?

Words will always fail to accurately describe the totality of the system and even worse the math formulas don’t do any better especially when considering statistics.

The average grades in my class is 80 but that doesn’t mean Ryan sitting in the front row got a 100 and Andrew in the middle row got a 62. Maybe everyone did get an 80, so then how can I describe not only in words but in function the distinction between these two environments; ie the 100&62 and the all 80s class?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The Limits of Science by atomack on Wednesday October 23, 2019 @07:22AM (#21333429)

I agree with GTP, the author's definition is vague. As GTP alludes to, temperature is defined perfectly clearly in statistical mechanics, through the sensitivity of the entropy to changes in the internal energy of a system (though there are several, equivalent ways to express it). The author really is incorrect to claim temperature is not a clearly understood concept

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The Limits of Science by phkahler on Wednesday October 23, 2019 @08:45AM (#21333999)

>> The author really is incorrect to claim temperature is not a clearly understood concept

Temperature is a very inexact model of the dynamics of a system. It does not tell you anything about the energy of any individual atom. It's an aggregate number.

Thermodynamics was an eye opening course for me. Its impressive how much real engineering can be done with lumped parameter models. The author wants to convey the limitations of that approach.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The Limits of Science by Konnstann on Wednesday October 23, 2019 @10:50AM (#21335185)

The limitations of that approach don't line up with the example. Someone running a fever is running a fever because of an immune response to illness a lot of the time, which is an aggregate response. The body has trillions of cells, in the case of temperature you don't need a reading of each one. Researchers sometimes do, and medical testing of methods, drugs, or devices is a lot more scrutinized before doctors ever get access.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The Limits of Science by nighthawk648 on Wednesday October 23, 2019 @02:00PM (#21337125)

Yeah this guy gets it! Thank you :)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The Limits of Science by nighthawk648 on Wednesday October 23, 2019 @02:02PM (#21337153)

Yeah while you are correct I am not talking about that specific additive. I am talking about a gaseous system of atoms and how temperature is related in a statistical manner rather then being identified as an individual process. Maybe it cannot be identified individually. That lack of individual identification or proof against the ability of individual identification is enough to say that science in its broadest terms is vague

[ Parent | on HN ]