Skip to main content
14 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Aug 27 at 14:30 comment added Klaus3 Your derivation is wrong because it assumed $dV >=0$ for $P_{int} > P_{ext}$ this is not correct. If tou have an expansion process, when the pressures equalize, the expansion will continue due to inertia until it stops and starts contracting, turning into a simple harmonic motion. With this correction, your derivation arrives at $\Delta S = 0$, hence you can't prove the 2nd from the time symmetric newtonian mechanics.
Feb 12, 2020 at 23:09 comment added ratsalad @BenCrowell You downvoted my answer and claim it is wrong. I'd appreciate it if you would support your assertion and explain where it is wrong. Note, it is of course possible that my answer is both correct and implicitly breaks time-reversal symmetry.
Jan 14, 2020 at 19:26 history edited ratsalad CC BY-SA 4.0
added 17 characters in body
Jan 14, 2020 at 15:50 history edited ratsalad CC BY-SA 4.0
deleted 1 character in body
Jan 14, 2020 at 14:50 comment added ratsalad @BenCrowell If it is wrong, then please show where.
Jan 13, 2020 at 17:47 comment added user4552 This is wrong. You can't derive a time-asymmetric law from time-symmetric microscopic laws, unless you introduce some other element that breaks the time-reversal symmetry.
Jan 13, 2020 at 13:34 history edited ratsalad CC BY-SA 4.0
added 2 characters in body
Feb 26, 2019 at 14:02 history edited ratsalad CC BY-SA 4.0
edited body
Feb 24, 2019 at 19:19 history edited ratsalad CC BY-SA 4.0
added 43 characters in body
Feb 23, 2019 at 22:05 history edited ratsalad CC BY-SA 4.0
deleted 83 characters in body
Feb 23, 2019 at 20:48 history edited ratsalad CC BY-SA 4.0
edited body
Feb 23, 2019 at 20:41 history edited ratsalad CC BY-SA 4.0
added 8 characters in body
Feb 23, 2019 at 20:13 history edited ratsalad CC BY-SA 4.0
deleted 8 characters in body
Feb 23, 2019 at 17:36 history answered ratsalad CC BY-SA 4.0