Thermodynamicists Are More Insane Than Einsteinians

"While investigating how efficiently the brain can learn new information, physicists have found that, at the neuronal level, learning efficiency is ultimately limited by the laws of thermodynamics - the same principles that limit the efficiency of many other familiar processes. "The greatest significance of our work is that we bring the second law of thermodynamics to the analysis of neural networks," Sebastian Goldt at the University of Stuttgart, Germany, told Phys.org. "The second law is a very powerful statement about which transformations are possible - and learning is just a transformation of a neural network at the expense of energy. This makes our results quite general and takes us one step towards understanding the ultimate limits of the efficiency of neural networks." Goldt and coauthor Udo Seifert have published a paper on their work in a recent issue of Physical Review Letters." https://phys.org/news/2017-02-thermodynamics.html

Here is the paper - it is easy to see that the work has nothing to do with thermodynamics and the second law of thermodynamics in particular:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1611.09428v1.pdf
Sebastian Goldt, Udo Seifert, Stochastic Thermodynamics of Learning

Einsteinians are also insane but still a title "Einstein's Relativity of Learning" does not exist (for now):

http://www.catholic.org/news/technol...y.php?id=69335
"World renown scientist says he has found proof of God! We may be living the the 'Matrix'. Michio Kaku believes he has found evidence for God in his work. Kaku is a well respected scientist, who has helped pioneer String Theory of the universe, the idea that the universe is formed by many different dimensions of space and time. String Theory is very complex and requires a significant background in physics to explain, but it is favored by many scientists because it succinctly answers many of the questions they have about the universe. [...] While working on String Theory, Kaku, discovered what he sees as evidence that the universe is created by an intelligence, rather than merely formed by random forces. He suggests he can explain it by what he calls, "primitive semi-radius tachyons." We do not yet have a succinct explanation of this idea from Kaku, other than he's referring to tachyons, which are theoretical particles that unbind particles from one another. Without getting into physics itself, Kaku concludes that we live in a Matrix-style universe, created by an intelligence. "I have concluded that we are in a world made by rules created by an intelligence", he said. "Believe me, everything that we call chance today won't make sense anymore. To me it is clear that we exists in a plan which is governed by rules that were created, shaped by a universal intelligence and not by chance."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BuxFXHircaI
Michio Kaku, Brian Cox, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Brian Greene, Lisa Randall: "Now, listen carefully. The faster you move, the heavier you get. Light travels at the same speed no matter how you look at it. No matter how I move relative to you light travels at the same speed. No matter who is doing the measurement and no matter what direction you are moving the speed of light is the same. The speed of light is the same no matter what direction or how fast... As you travel faster time slows down. Everything slows down. Everything slows down. Time slows down when you move. Time passes at a different rate. Clocks run slow. It's a monumental shift in how we see the world. It's a beautiful piece of science. It's a beautifully elegant theory. It's a beautiful piece of science. It's a beautiful piece..."

Pentcho Valev

Entropy is not a state function. This means that any statement involving "entropy" is not even wrong. If you define the entropy S as a quantity that obeys the equation dS=dQrev/T, you will find that, so defined, the entropy is a STATE FUNCTION FOR AN IDEAL GAS. Clausius was very impressed by this statefunctionness and decided to prove that the entropy (so defined) is a state function for ANY system. So "Entropy is a state function" became a fundamental theorem in thermodynamics. Clausius deduced it from the assumption that any cycle can be disintegrated into small Carnot cycles, and nowadays this deduction remains the only justification of "Entropy is a state function":

http://mutuslab.cs.uwindsor.ca/schur...es/240_l10.pdf
"Carnot Cycles: S is a State Function. Any reversible cycle can be thought of as a collection of Carnot cycles - this approximation becomes exact as cycles become infinitesimal. Entropy change around an individual cycle is zero. Sum of entropy changes over all cycles is zero."

http://ronispc.chem.mcgill.ca/ronis/chem213/hnd8.pdf
"Entropy Changes in Arbitrary Cycles. What if we have a process which occurs in a cycle other than the Carnot cycle, e.g., the cycle depicted in Fig. 3. If entropy is a state function, cyclic integral of dS = 0, no matter what the nature of the cycle. In order to see that this is true, break up the cycle into sub-cycles, each of which is a Carnot cycle, as shown in Fig. 3. If we apply Eq. (7) to each piece, and add the results, we get zero for the sum."

The assumption on which "Entropy is a state function" is based - that any cycle can be subdivided into small Carnot cycles - is obviously false. An isothermal cycle CANNOT be subdivided into small Carnot cycles. A cycle involving the action of conservative forces CANNOT be subdivided into small Carnot cycles.

Conclusion: The belief that the entropy is a state function is totally unjustified. The part of thermodynamics based on the entropy concept is not even wrong.

http://www.eoht.info/page/Neumann-Shannon+anecdote
"...Shannon was wavering on whether or not to call his new logarithmic statistical formulation of data in signal transmission by the name of 'information' or 'uncertainty', to which question Neumann suggested that Shannon use neither names, but rather use the name 'entropy' of thermodynamics, because: (a) the statistical mechanics version of the entropy equations have the same mathematical isomorphism and (b) nobody really knows what entropy really is so he will have the advantage in winning any arguments that might erupt."

Pentcho Valev

Arthur Eddington, perhaps the greatest fraudster in the history of science:

http://web.mit.edu/keenansymposium/o...und/index.html
Arthur Eddington: "The law that entropy always increases, holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature. If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell's equations - then so much the worse for Maxwell's equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation - well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics, I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation."

"Entropy always increases" is in fact a theorem deduced by Clausius in 1865:

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00000313/
Jos Uffink, Bluff your Way in the Second Law of Thermodynamics, p. 37: "Hence we obtain: THE ENTROPY PRINCIPLE (Clausius' version) For every nicht umkehrbar [irreversible] process in an adiabatically isolated system which begins and ends in an equilibrium state, the entropy of the final state is greater than or equal to that of the initial state. For every umkehrbar [reversible] process in an adiabatical system, the entropy of the final state is equal to that of the initial state."

Clausius' deduction was based on three postulates:

Postulate 1 (implicit): The entropy is a state function.

Postulate 2: Clausius' inequality (formula 10 on p. 33 in Uffink's paper) is correct.

Postulate 3: Any irreversible process can be closed by a reversible process to become a cycle.

All the three postulates are totally unjustified - clever scientists are well aware of that:

Uffink, p.39: "A more important objection, it seems to me, is that Clausius bases his conclusion that the entropy increases in a nicht umkehrbar [irreversible] process on the assumption that such a process can be closed by an umkehrbar [reversible] process to become a cycle. This is essential for the definition of the entropy difference between the initial and final states.. But the assumption is far from obvious for a system more complex than an ideal gas, or for states far from equilibrium, or for processes other than the simple exchange of heat and work. Thus, the generalisation to all transformations occurring in Nature is somewhat rash."

Pentcho Valev

Two tests of insanity:

Test 1: A person who reads the following text and sees nothing idiotic in the "enough strangeness" is insane:

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/chap11.pdf
David Morin, Introduction to Classical Mechanics With Problems and Solutions, Chapter 11, p. 14: "Twin A stays on the earth, while twin B flies quickly to a distant star and back. [...] For the entire outward and return parts of the trip, B does observe A's clock running slow, but enough strangeness occurs during the turning-around period to make A end up older."

Test 2: A person who reads the following text and sees nothing idiotic in the appearance of a HOMOGENEOUS gravitational field is insane:

http://sciliterature.50webs.com/Dialog.htm
Albert Einstein: "A homogeneous gravitational field appears, that is directed towards the positive x-axis. Clock U1 is accelerated in the direction of the positive x-axis until it has reached the velocity v, then the gravitational field disappears again. An external force, acting upon U2 in the negative direction of the x-axis prevents U2 from being set in motion by the gravitational field. [...] According to the general theory of relativity, a clock will go faster the higher the gravitational potential of the location where it is located, and during partial process 3 U2 happens to be located at a higher gravitational potential than U1. The calculation shows that this speeding ahead constitutes exactly twice as much as the lagging behind during the partial processes 2 and 4."

Pentcho Valev

Another test of insanity: A person who reads the following text and agrees with Einstein that w = c - v comes into conflict with the principle of relativity is insane:

http://www.bartleby.com/173/7.html
Albert Einstein: "Now let us suppose that our railway carriage is again travelling along the railway lines with the velocity v, and that its direction is the same as that of the ray of light, but its velocity of course much less. Let us inquire about the velocity of propagation of the ray of light relative to the carriage. It is obvious that we can here apply the consideration of the previous section, since the ray of light plays the part of the man walking along relatively to the carriage. The velocity W of the man relative to the embankment is here replaced by the velocity of light relative to the embankment. w is the required velocity of light with respect to the carriage, and we have w = c - v. The velocity of propagation of a ray of light relative to the carriage thus comes out smaller than c. But this result comes into conflict with the principle of relativity set forth in Section V."

Pentcho Valev

The Clausius statement of the second law of thermodynamics:

"Heat can never pass from a colder to a warmer body without some other change connected therewith, occurring at the same time."

This version of the second law of thermodynamics is very popular because, like "Entropy always increases", it makes no sense (scientists love nonsensical statements):

http://link.springer.com/book/10.100...-1-4613-9444-0
Clifford Truesdell, The Tragicomical History of Thermodynamics, 1822–1854, p. 333: "Clausius' verbal statement of the "Second Law" makes no sense, for "some other change connected therewith" introduces two new and unexplained concepts: "other change" and "connection" of changes. Neither of these finds any place in Clausius' formal structure. All that remains is a Mosaic prohibition. A century of philosophers and journalists have acclaimed this commandment; a century of mathematicians have shuddered and averted their eyes from the unclean."

Of all thermodynamicists living on Earth nowadays not one could think of a reason why "some other change connected therewith" should be discussed. I am going to do the job for them. Here is an oversimplified presentation of Clausius' 1850 argument:

Premise: Heat can never pass from a colder to a warmer body SPONTANEOUSLY.

Conclusion: Heat can never pass from a colder to a warmer body REVERSIBLY.

The premise is true but the conclusion does not follow from it (the argument is invalid). This would have been easily noticed if Clausius had not made another mistake that fatally confused the issue: his formulation of the conclusion actually coincided with the premise. That is, Clausius deduced, even though invalidly, the conclusion

"Heat can never pass from a colder to a warmer body REVERSIBLY",

but the terms he used in the formulation of the conclusion were misleading so nowadays the conclusion is known as

"Heat can never pass from a colder to a warmer body without some other change connected therewith, occurring at the same time",

a statement which coincides with the premise.

Here is Clausius' 1950 text:

http://www.mdpi.org/lin/clausius/clausius.htm
"Ueber die bewegende Kraft der Wärme", 1850, Rudolf Clausius: "Carnot assumed, as has already been mentioned, that the equivalent of the work done by heat is found in the mere transfer of heat from a hotter to a colder body, while the quantity of heat remains undiminished. The latter part of this assumption--namely, that the quantity of heat remains undiminished--contradicts our former principle, and must therefore be rejected... [...] It is this maximum of work which must be compared with the heat transferred. When this is done it appears that there is in fact ground for asserting, with Carnot, that it depends only on the quantity of the heat transferred and on the temperatures t and tau of the two bodies A and B, but not on the nature of the substance by means of which the work is done. [...] If we now suppose that there are two substances of which the one can produce more work than the other by the transfer of a given amount of heat, or, what comes to the same thing, needs to transfer less heat from A to B to produce a given quantity of work, we may use these two substances alternately by producing work with one of them in the above process. At the end of the operations both bodies are in their original condition; further, the work produced will have exactly counterbalanced the work done, and therefore, by our former principle, the quantity of heat can have neither increased nor diminished. THE ONLY CHANGE will occur in the distribution of the heat, since more heat will be transferred from B to A than from A to B, and so on the whole heat will be transferred from B to A. By repeating these two processes alternately it would be possible, WITHOUT ANY EXPENDITURE OF FORCE OR ANY OTHER CHANGE, to transfer as much heat as we please from a cold to a hot body, and this is not in accord with the other relations of heat, since it always shows a tendency to equalize temperature differences and therefore to pass from hotter to colder bodies."

It is easy to see that the two-substances process considered by Clausius presupposes the action of an OPERATOR; this operator constantly and unavoidably undergoes CHANGES, changes that are absent when heat spontaneously "shows a tendency to equalize temperature differences and therefore to pass from hotter to colder bodies". In other words, the trivial fact that, in a spontaneous process, in the absence of an operator, heat always flows from hot to cold by no means implies that heat will flow from hot to cold in a non-spontaneous operator-driven process as the one considered by Clausius.

Clausius' argument is not just invalid; Clausius additionally confused it so it became "not even wrong". Such idiocies are impossible to eradicate. They will disappear with the death of the civilization.

Pentcho Valev