-
Views
-
Cite
Cite
Joshua Luczak, How many aims are we aiming at?, Analysis, Volume 78, Issue 2, April 2018, Pages 244–254, https://doi.org/10.1093/analys/anx147
- Share Icon Share
Abstract
I highlight that the aim of using statistical mechanics to underpin irreversible processes is, strictly speaking, ambiguous. Traditionally, however, the task of underpinning irreversible processes has been thought to be synonymous with underpinning the Second Law of thermodynamics. I claim that contributors to the foundational discussion are best interpreted as aiming to provide a microphysical justification of the Minus First Law, despite the ways their aims are often stated. I suggest that contributors should aim at accounting for both the Minus First Law and Second Law.
thermodynamics, statistical mechanics, Second Law of thermodynamics, Minus First Law of thermodynamics, irreversible
© The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The Analysis Trust. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: [email protected]
This article is published and distributed under the terms of the Oxford University Press, Standard Journals Publication Model (https://dbpia.nl.go.kr/journals/pages/about_us/legal/notices)
Issue Section:
Articles
You do not currently have access to this article.