Talk:Philosophy of thermal and statistical physics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
WikiProject Physics
Portal:Physics
 Physics Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, which collaborates on articles related to physics.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. [FAQ]
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating within physics.

Please rate this article, and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
This article or section is in need of attention from an expert on the subject.
Please help recruit one or improve this article yourself. See the talk page for details.
Please consider using {{Expert-subject}} to associate this request with a WikiProject

[edit] Merge

I think all of this pages content can be incorporated into the thermodynamics article. Perhaps this page should not be deleted, but dedicated to explaining the link between thermodynamics and statistical mechanics. As it stands, it could use some work in that area. PAR 01:05, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Importance

The link between thermodynamics and statistical mechanics is important because it raises philosophical questions about how the postulatory method is used in science. There are questions raised about how humans "do" science, and how different subfields use the same words to mean the same thing, but with different implicit assumptions that are only assumed by those in the same subfield when they use language in a slightly sloppy way (which is the way it's usually used) or math in a slightly sloppy way (which happpens sometimes too). For example: which is a better way to approach thinking about the laws of nature? Determining a property of matter relative to a perfect vacuum at a temperature of 0 K which can only be approached or determining a property of a system relative to static equilibrium with an infinite reservoir which can only be approached? This is a philosophical question because the two ways will give the same answers if rigor is maintained. But the choice is still made very often in a subconscious way in the mind of researchers in different fields and this choice has conseqeunces that often prevent scientists in different fields from understanding each other. This is not addressed in the present article, so I understand your suggestion for a merge. I am changing the merge tag to an importance tag and adding an expert tag here. We need a systems ecologist who is really great at physics or a physicist who has really dived into the systems ecology literature or a person familiar with both along with issues in the philosophy of science. In a few weeks, I might be familiar enough with the topic to do a major rewrite of this article or move some of what I'm trying to do at exergy here. Flying Jazz 15:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk

There is a lot to say about this subject, but it has not yet been said in the Wikipedia. My suggestion is to make this an introduction with links to articles concering detailed subjects. Those articles till have to be written, though. A few suggestions (please feel free to see this as a 'to do' list):

Etcetera. We have a lot of work to do. ;) -- Victor Gijsbers

Sounds good. I agree, there's certainly a lot of interesting material to be written. You might want to check out our article naming conventions before you start on a large set of articles. -- Tim Starling 14:49 6 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Ah, the capitals. Thanks for mentioning it. -- Victor Gijsbers

You guys seem to have been off to a good start two years ago but to since have abandoned this project. Ah, but I'm on the case now. --Christofurio 13:31, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)


I'm removing this paragraph, for the following reasons:

  • Even if the universe has zero net energy density, that is an empirical observation, not a constraint imposed by the first law of thermodynamics.
  • The content of the paragraph is out of date, since it does not mention the cosmological constant, which is now believed to be an important contribution to the energy density of the universe.

Removed text:

"In scientific arguments about cosmology, the study of the cosmos as a whole, this first law is an important constraint - it limits the net energy of universe by zero. Observations indeed support that positive rest energy of matter in visible universe (which amounts to about 1070 Joules) is equilibrated by the same amount of negative gravitational energy of interaction of this matter (which amounts to the same 1070 Joules, but with negative sign as gravity is an attractive force). Also, according to cosmological models space-time of zero-energy universe must be flat - and recent observations support this too."

I'm also removing the last part of this paragraph:

"There is, for example, Boltzmann's H-theorem, an interpretation associated with Ludwig Boltzmann (1844 - 1906) which proposes that the directionality of thermodynamics is a consequence of the dimensionality of electromagnetics. Disorderliness, or entropy, must increase over time, in other words, under the influence of time-delayed interactions through purely retarded potentials."

To begin with, the "dimensionality of electromagnetics" has nothing to do with the H theorem. Nor can the retarded potential in electromagnetism explain the directionality of time, since the advanced potential is equally a solution of Maxwell's equations.

67.186.28.212 15:59, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/h/i/Talk%7EPhilosophy_of_thermal_and_statistical_physics_e3ec.html"