Talk:Physics with Calculus/Thermodynamics/Entropy

Critique 2017
I came to this article from:

https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Entropy_for_Beginners

which is truly terrible. This article has two advantages over that one:


 * It is short, so the fact that it is useless is more obvious.
 * The language is clear, so it is easy to see it is just handwaving.

Specific defects:


 * comment one after the state formula:
 * "pseudo-quantum" reaks of arrogance, like "classical".
 * The units of volume/h^3 are 1/(momentum)^3 which is clearly not a count of positions.
 * "...aphysical and irrelevant..." then delete the remark
 * "(learn quantum mechanics!)" unbelievably arrogant. Statistical mechanics was created well before quantum mechanics and the concept of entropy was first defined by statistical mechanics.  In fact, "classical" quantum mechanics is founded upon statistical mechanics.  This remark suggests the authors' basic understanding of physics is flawed and is resorting to quantum bullying.
 * If you are going to be arrogant, at least cite a reference to a cogent derivation.
 * comment two introduces a constant that is later washed away in another constant.
 * comment three handwaves about "quantum mechanics" instead of simply stating that N objects can be rearranged in N places N! ways so that each state has N! redundant representations, which need to be divided out. It is simple combinatorics, not a "quantum effect".
 * comment 4 adds nothing and would be better replaced by a reminder that the exponent N serves the same purpose as the exponent N in the coin toss example.
 * The subsequent mathematical definition of entropy is just a rabbit pulled out of a hat, unrelated to the forgoing "quantum mechanical" discussion.
 * The units are not "...fuddled..." if you take the trouble to note the argument of the logarithm is unitless, and you carry the individual units forward as log(unit). Saying it won't matter by a hand wave to the stirling approximation is just wrong, since it does not affect the units that are allegedly fuddled.
 * The remaining formulae are just more rabbits.

In conclusion, I infer that the authors are unqualified to write on this topic, beyond merely pantomiming a caricature of academic arrogance and cutting and pasting suitable formulae from more solid expositions. I do not believe they possess any real conceptual understanding of thermodynamics.