3.9 Article

Statistical mechanics and thermodynamics: A Maxwellian view

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.shpsb.2011.07.001

关键词

Thermodynamics; Second law of thermodynamics; Entropy; James Clerk Maxwell; Maxwell's demon

资金

  1. Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada

向作者/读者索取更多资源

One finds, in Maxwell's writings on thermodynamics and statistical physics, a conception of the nature of these subjects that differs in interesting ways from the way they are usually conceived. In particular, though-in agreement with the currently accepted view-Maxwell maintains that the second law of thermodynamics, as originally conceived, cannot be strictly tale, the replacement he proposes is different from the version accepted by most physicists today. The modification of the second law accepted by most physicists is a probabilistic one: although statistical fluctuations will result in occasional spontaneous differences in temperature or pressure, there is no way to predictably and reliably harness these to produce large violations of the original version of the second law. Maxwell advocates a version of the second law that is strictly weaker; the validity of even this probabilistic version is of limited scope, limited to situations in which we are dealing with large numbers of molecules en masse and have no ability to manipulate individual molecules. Connected with this is his conception of the thermodynamic concepts of heat, work, and entropy; on the Maxwellian view, these are concept that must be relativized to the means we have available for gathering information about and manipulating physical systems. The Maxwellian view is one that deserves serious consideration in discussions of the foundation of statistical mechanics. It has relevance for the project of recovering thermodynamics from statistical mechanics because, in such a project, it matters which version of the second law we are trying to recover. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.9
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据