The FOURTH Law of Thermodynamics? The 4th Law Explained!

[@SkyScholar]

At 1:32-1:41, in describing an intensive property like temperature, the object under study need not be homogeneous and the value need not be the same throughout the system, as improperly stated in the video. For instance, in the modern gaseous theory of the stars, the temperature varies throughout the interior as a function of radial position. Still, the temperature remains intensive because it can be determined at every spatial location. This is true of all intensive properties. Conversely, extensive properties must be determined over a certain spatial extent.

[@delawarecop]

Need to rework the video then, huh? ASAP

[@concernedcitizen6313]

I think what you stated was clear enough, and speaking as a layman, I can say that I didn't assume you were stating that the temperature is the same throughout an entire object. That said, I can see why someone might, and if you think it's a distinction worth making, or clarifying, you might want to add this to the description somewhere near the top, as not everyone goes to the comments section.

[@briantrenton967]

I realize it's kind of off topic but does anybody know of a good website to watch new movies online ?

[@darielbaylor6790]

@Brian Trenton Try Flixzone. You can find it on google =)

[@frankdimeglio8216]

THE ULTIMATE (AND CLEAR) MATHEMATICAL UNIFICATION (AND PROOF) REGARDING PHYSICS/PHYSICAL EXPERIENCE IS NOW DEMONSTRATED, AS E=MC2 IS F=MA: TIME DILATION ultimately proves (ON BALANCE) that E=mc2 IS F=ma, as ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. This NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, AND DESCRIBES what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE. (Importantly, balance and completeness go hand in hand.) The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. NOW, A PHOTON may be placed at the center of WHAT IS THE SUN (as A POINT, of course); AS the reduction of SPACE is offset by (or BALANCED with) the speed of light (c); AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Indeed, ultimately and truly, TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE; AS E=MC2 IS F=MA; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Very importantly, outer "space" involves full inertia; AND it is fully invisible AND black. GREAT. Accordingly, INSTANTANEITY is thus FUNDAMENTAL to what is the FULL and proper UNDERSTANDING of physics/PHYSICAL EXPERIENCE; AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. It ALL CLEARLY makes perfect sense. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. E=mc2 IS F=ma. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. E=MC2 IS F=MA. GREAT !!! Gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy are linked AND BALANCED opposites, AS E=mc2 is F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Consider THE MAN who is standing on what is THE EARTH/GROUND. Touch AND feeling BLEND, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. GRAVITATIONAL force/ENERGY IS proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Accordingly, the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches it's revolution. Great. MOREOVER, a given PLANET (including what is THE EARTH) then sweeps out equal areas in equal times consistent WITH/AS F=ma, E=mc2, AND what is perpetual motion; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. INSTANTANEITY is thus FUNDAMENTAL to what is the FULL and proper UNDERSTANDING of physics/physical experience, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. This NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, AND DESCRIBES what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE. Stellar clustering ALSO proves ON BALANCE that E=mc2 IS F=ma, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Objects (including WHAT IS the falling MAN) fall at the SAME RATE (neglecting air resistance, of course), as E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. "Mass"/energy is gravity. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. E=mc2 IS F=ma. THE DOME of a PERSON'S EYE is ALSO VISIBLE. (Notice the flat AND black space of what is THE EYE.) The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. The sky is blue, AND the Earth is blue. THE EARTH/ground AND THE SUN are E=mc2 AND F=ma IN BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS UNIVERSALLY PROVEN TO BE GRAVITY in what is a mathematically unified fashion. E=mc2 IS F=ma. The middle distance in/of/AS SPACE AND the full distance in/of/AS SPACE are NECESSARILY linked AND balanced. MAGNIFICENT !!!!!!!!!! INSTANTANEITY IS thus FUNDAMENTAL to what is the FULL and proper UNDERSTANDING of physics/physical experience, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. It is ALL CLEARLY proven. Again, the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. GREAT. Energy has/involves GRAVITY, AND ENERGY has/involves inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE. GRAVITATIONAL force/ENERGY IS proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. It is all CLEARLY proven !!!!!!!! TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE, AS E=MC2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. GREAT !!!!!!!! BALANCE and completeness go hand in hand. By Frank DiMeglio

[@ScientificLee]

excellent clear thinking and presentation.

[@jrustnoone513]

I'm humbled by Dr. PMR's brilliance.

[@VladimirDragiev]

Dear Sky Scholar, thank you for the amazing channel!!! Keep up the great work! Perfect health and unlimited joy!!!

[@thegreenjarret5184]

I was told that the fourth law is : Everything takes more time and ressources than first expected. ;) I can hear many prepousterous academicians cry tears of shame in the distance. Quite the lesson the "scientific" community just been delivered.

[@concernedcitizen6313]

This may be one of the headiest channels I've encountered, and as I'm not that great with advanced math, these vids on thermodynamics are particularly heady. As such, you really have to pay close attention. These aren't vids you can just have going in the background and expect to really learn anything. By the way, this is all meant as a compliment. This channel is a great complement to The Thunderbolts Project. Even if your model and Don Scott's aren't the same -- and I don't know that they're contradictory -- you're all doing important research and asking questions -- and getting _us_ to ask questions -- in a similar direction.

[@krishnachaitanyanandimanda3992]

I think there is a bit more to the 4th law than what he told. Googled it and found tht is is actually way more complex than what he told!

[@Evermore425]

Great videos! Ive always been fascinated by calculus and analytical physics. Having that background it's easy to jump right in.

[@P4n0r4mA]

Mr bombshell Robitaille :D Awsome. Brilliant

[@drscott1]

Great stuff thanks

[@sidneypickering9060]

Thank you

[@jehovajah]

Intensive and extensive magnitudes are very important and philosophically required for correct interpretation. . Extensive properties usually form so called lineal / linear combinations. . Intensive properties are usually captured by ratios and equivalence class. . A finite field of numerals may be used to measure intensities: for example probability is ensured intensive,y.

[@jasonsharma5888]

is it just me, or does it seem discreet mathematics has finally found it's way into astrophysics? +Sky Scholar -Thanks doc!

[@jehovajah]

Jason Sharma The lack of clarity over some fundamental measures is what is being dealt with here. For example temperature is not measured by a thermometer when we dealing with temperatures like the sun or the melting of iron et cetera. The change in the method of measuring temperature hides the fact that we are dealing with finite systems.

[@jasonsharma5888]

I agree, discrete mathematics is fundamental to physics, top to bottom. wiki / Discrete_mathematics top to bottom= as above, also below, and so right here

[@allanroser1070]

Thanks Prof Robataille Im back to understanding a bit more :) . I googled the 4Th Law and found this . In this link is this statement presented as a humorous (?) jab at the issue “If you can disprove the first three ... no funding for you!” -Anon www.eoht.info/page/Fourth+law+of+thermodynamics

[@LostHorizon52]

Nicely explained, thanks so much.

[@FindLiberty]

Very clear - thank you

[@NormiteLou]

Wow, 4th Law. Thank you so much. You explanation is beautiful, and it make so much sense. I will study this Law more closely. Thank you again.

[@summerbrooks9922]

I will have to go back to study the lists. I am interested in those which exhibit intensive properties versus those which remain extensive. I am so thankful for your intellectual drive and your excellent videos to promote reasonable values in the pursuit of astronomical and astrophysical properties. Now, I wonder how the mathematical circus went wrong.

[@FelonyVideos]

Thermodynamics was always my weakness, but thanks to you, I am understanding it better now!

[@75viking75]

Very good! Thanks!

[@rushwinvaishnav3356]

So does it means that to check an equation not only dimension but aur the 4th law should be applied? Please ans I am in 11th .

[@Ricky07070909]

Thank you for your explanation. Very very interesting

[@mcaballeropose]

I am waiting for your next videos. I want to see those inconsistent equations. You seem to have a good point here.

[@asfnobambu]

How about to make this channel mandatory watching to all science students ?

[@VladimirDragiev]

:-)

[@RobertLTrent]

Then you’d have bio majors and psych majors throwing a fit bc they don’t get it..

[@rogerramjet9876]

Great work. 👍 I'll bet that crinkled some toes 😉

[@jasonwarren9279]

Some intensive properties confuse me. How are color and melting/boiling point intensive? How can a single atom have a color or boil? Or is there a minimum number of atoms required for a system to be viewed as intensive?

[@anpier926]

Thank you, your videos will make me learn thermodinamics

[@E.lectricityNorth]

Maybe the astrophysicists were so busy trying to come up with zany new equations, that they forgot some of their algebraic and logical basics. Thank you Professor R!

[@RobertLTrent]

What about reciprocal relationships ?

[@martinsoos]

Pressure works just fine on gas, but what about solids in space. As pressure goes to 0 Does temp go to 0, Or is their a "gravitational pressure."

[@jehovajah]

I have long since proposed that temperature in the common usage is a measure of expansion and contraction pressure induced by heat flow or rate of conduction in the mercury or measuring arterial. . . Thus it is clearly intensive and related to pressure not independent of it. When temperature is estimated by black body radiation pressure in the radiating body is also implied. So warm material rise because of higher pressure and lower density,

[@zyxzevn]

Can you explain the similarities and differences between Zeeman effect and Stark effect?

[@allanroser1070]

Hi zyxgven ... maybe this paper could help? www.ptep-online.com/2014/PP-38-07.PDF

[@forestsoceansmusic]

Another great explanatory video. I just don't see how you reached the following conclusion (near the end): "If you ignore thermodynamic principles, you are NOT doing science. [I can see that.] Therefore astrophysics WILL eventually be corrected." I can't see how the 'therefore' is reached. Isn't it possible that humanity will descend back into another Dark Ages, and science become a quasi-Religion (towards which it has been ever faster heading since the 1970's) ??

[@allanroser1070]

Fascinating, .....a Scientist nominated for a Nobel 81 times ..... In the late 1940s, German theoretical physicist Arnold Sommerfeld, having previously written a series of books in physics: mechanics (1943), electrodynamics (1948), optics (1950), etc., was asked why he had never written a book on thermodynamics? The following is his humorouss and frequently quoted answer: [8] “Thermodynamics is a funny subject. The first time you go through it, you don't understand it at all. The second time you go through it, you think you understand it, except for one or two small points. The third time you go through it, you know you don't understand it, but by that time you are so used to it, it doesn't bother you anymore.” In an odd twist of fate to this quote, in April of 1951, while in the midst of writing a book on thermodynamics (Thermodynamics and Statistical Mechanics), and having been nominated 81 times for the Nobel Prize (more than any other physicist), but not yet having won, Sommerfeld was killed from injuries after a traffic accident while walking his grandchildren. The book was published post-humorously the following year. [9 www.eoht.info/page/Thermodynamics+humor

[@Taoss123KeyholeJourney]

My first introduction to thermodynamics was from the Babcock & Wilcox book "Steam". I found it fascinating! Sommerfeld quote: "The third time you go through it, you know you don't understand it, but by that time you are so used to it, it doesn't bother you anymore." That's where I'm at - most of the time. :-)

[@allanroser1070]

And the 81st time you go through it you are hit by a Trolley bus ... I know those feels :)

[@calvincheney7405]

Fortunately, Michio Kaku doesn't maintain a trolley endorsement Allan. It is now safe to cross the street~

[@summerbrooks9922]

Oh, my word, how perfectly dreadful.

[@summerbrooks9922]

I was referring to Mr. Rosen's comment, not to the Kaku joke.

[@forestsoceansmusic]

It seems to me that the Intensive and Extensive properties of any object or system are very much like the dialectical categories Quality and Quantity (respectively).

[@chaitanyagadekar]

But fourth law is about entropy na?

[@daemonnice]

The thing about these Laws that I am beginning to question is their relevancy when it comes to the universe at large. Is the universe a closed system? Or put another way, in an interconnected cosmos, can there be such a thing as a closed system? The idea of a closed system is a mathematical abstraction through mechanical reasoning. They were derived at a time when they were just trying to build efficient machines and treating them as isolated systems makes sense and works. They also, at this time, had a finite materialist reductionist perspective believing in a divided universe of isolated bits of matter. Even Einstein believed the planets were isolated islands in space and time. In the video Pierre uses a box containing gasses to explain the Laws. Being a box it is a machine, a static machine perhaps, but its mechanical function is to contain. In this it is entirely a manmade construct and not a thing of nature. In this I am not saying it is unnatural, but that it is limited to man's limited understanding of nature at that time. Is it safe to assume the universe is a closed system? Whichever way we choose to answer that question it is an assumption. Though, I am inclined to think that is at different magnitudes the universe consists of layers of interconnected systems, why should the universe itself be an isolated system? Are the subatomic particles isolated that make up the atoms that make up the molecules that make up the cells that make up the organs that make up the being that is a part of the earth that is a part of the solar system that is a part of the galaxy that is a part of...well, you get the idea. Everything to varying degrees is interconnected with everything else. Entropy too is a materialistic reasoning as it speaks of the breakdown of ordered matter from that of a perspective of a finite machine. In the case of the cards, they did not order themselves and neither did they disorder themselves, they were affected by an outside influence, another system. In this case it was Pierre, thus the cards are not an isolated system which is necessary for a closed system. Someone made the card and ordered them, he disordered them, why assume they could order themselves? There is an aspect to the idea of entropy that is also linear in its finiteness with a beginning and an end. Where-as, if energy cannot be created or destroyed, but only transferred, it seems it is cyclical and not linear. And considering the degree of spin and cyclicity observed in the universe, I'd say these linear concepts are inappropriate. It seems to me the universe is made up of interconnected systems. And as much as energy is the ability to do work, that work at a foundational level is a movement between polarities defined by the potential difference of those polarities. But interestingly, energy here is defined by two behaviors, attraction and repulsion, and as long as there are likes that repel and opposites that attract energy will continue to cycle back and forth throughout the universe. By the way, these laws were also formulated prior to the discovery of the self-organizing self-propagating properties of Plasma, plasma double layers and plasmoids. But that is for another day.

[@jehovajah]

Thermodynamics ignores cold as a contra energy, instead it attempts to explain endothermic reactions in terms of a balance sheet approach. .endothermic reactions generate cold energy which is implosive and contracting. . When the pressure is lowered the high pressure material expands and boils away while the low pressure material contracts and crystallises out of solution/ dissolution.

[@TheGreatFilterPodcast]

I'm curious - if this is such a prevalent mistake in astrophysics, might these mistakes deeply influence how we understand dark energy/matter?

[@YasirAmin1]

I clicked the 1000th like. 👍

[@johnlord8337]

That hurt a goodly number of brain cells ....

[@yaoooy]

so hawking radiation and temperature are wrong because they do not satisfy the fourth law

[@beambang]

What is the difference between (Intensive) "Specific Heat Capacity", and (Extensive) "Heat Capacity" ?

[@MoronicAcid1]

A block of iron has a heat capacity, and iron itself has a specific heat capacity. Though, it is absurd to talk about the heat capacity of an unspecified amount of iron. It is equally absurd to talk about the specific heat capacity of a non-homogeneous block of iron.

[@shoopinc]

Specific heat is divided by mass so you can use it for any mass of homogeneous material.

[@Diablo-D3]

Deja vu?

[@amfvideos6810]

1:02 Science has no opinions.

[@friedrichnietzscheskatze4422]

This should be the fourth law of thermodynamics: whenever a body and soap meet, a parcel arrives!

[@ThomasistheTwin]

Heat is an electrical effect and therefore thermodynamics isn't a cause.

[@rd9831]

So there are five laws of thermodynamics. 0th, 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th. Confusing.!! To say the least. So is the 1st law actually the second? And so on... LOL.

[@GargaGaming]

Seems like such an elementary idea. Astrophysics has to have some very abstract math for this to be lost on the scientists...

[@TheDalaiLamaCon]

I'm waiting for these laws to lower my gas and electric bill. Damn those climate deniers.

[@surajvishwakarma4534]

You told everything except the fourth law of thermodynamics. Useless video.

[@ydnartitcomb1]

Thank you