Joined
·
380 Posts
So my friend is trying to explain to me that if you have ice in a cup of ice water, that all the water everywhere in the cup will be the same temperature of the ice, about 32 degrees farenheit. I tell him, that great, but when you get to a larger system, it's not going to be very useful. And he says that it's still true. I bust out with, everything takes time, so it will take time for any state change where the ice is to absorb heat that is over on the other side of the system, and in that time there will be difference, not to mention things like the jetstream in the ocean, and no uniformity of heat being applied to the glass via the external environment, so on and so forth..
The whole thing got kicked off when I said that you could cook ramen noodles the same time in the boiling water twice and get very different results (I posited it may be the difference between throwing them in the water when it just starts boiling compared to when it's all out boiling.) This is where he first stated that it would be the same temperature everywhere once it started boiling. To which my reply was, see the water boil in a location in the pot is probably a better indicator of temperature than what the thermometer was telling you anyway, if you weren't able to measure a difference.
So I finally find this: "Non-equilibrium thermodynamics applies to situations where the system under study is not in thermodynamic equilibrium but can be broken into subsystems which are sufficiently small to be in equilibrium, while still being large enough that thermodynamics is applicable to them" Which I think is the deal breaker showing that time and distance and external forces really do matter, and are better accounted for using this model of thermodynamics as upposed to the only one he probably learned as was droning on to me about.
What do you guys think?
The whole thing got kicked off when I said that you could cook ramen noodles the same time in the boiling water twice and get very different results (I posited it may be the difference between throwing them in the water when it just starts boiling compared to when it's all out boiling.) This is where he first stated that it would be the same temperature everywhere once it started boiling. To which my reply was, see the water boil in a location in the pot is probably a better indicator of temperature than what the thermometer was telling you anyway, if you weren't able to measure a difference.
So I finally find this: "Non-equilibrium thermodynamics applies to situations where the system under study is not in thermodynamic equilibrium but can be broken into subsystems which are sufficiently small to be in equilibrium, while still being large enough that thermodynamics is applicable to them" Which I think is the deal breaker showing that time and distance and external forces really do matter, and are better accounted for using this model of thermodynamics as upposed to the only one he probably learned as was droning on to me about.
What do you guys think?