Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T19:33:47.226Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

What Chains Does Liouville's Theorem Put on Maxwell's Demon?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Peter M. Ainsworth
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Recently Albert and Hemmo and Shenker have argued that, contrary to what is sometimes suggested, Liouville's theorem does not prohibit a Maxwellian demon from operating but merely places certain restrictions on its ability to operate. There are two main claims made in this article. First, that the restrictions Liouville's theorem places on Maxwell's demon's ability to operate depend on which notion of entropy one adopts. Second, that when one operates with the definition of entropy that is usual in this debate, the restrictions put on Maxwell's demon are not even as severe as Albert and Hemmo and Shenker argue.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 78 , Issue 1 , January 2011 , pp. 149 - 164
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

‡

I would like to thank Meir Hemmo and an anonymous referee, both of whom provided many constructive comments on this article.

References

Ainsworth, Peter M. 2005. “The Spin-Echo Experiment and Statistical Mechanics.” Foundations of Physics Letters 18 (7): 621–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Albert, David Z. 2000. Time and Chance. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Callender, Craig. 2006. “Thermodynamic Asymmetry in Time.” In Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. Zalta, Edward N.. Stanford, CA: Stanford University, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/time-thermo/.Google Scholar
Earman, John, and Norton, John D.. 1998. “Exorcist XIV: The Wrath of Maxwell's Demon,” pt. 1, “From Maxwell to Szilard.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 29 (4): 435–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Earman, John, and Norton, John D.. 1999. “Exorcist XIV: The Wrath of Maxwell's Demon,” pt. 2, “From Szilard to Landauer and Beyond.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 30 (1): 1–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frigg, Roman P. 2008. “A Field Guide to Recent Work on the Foundations of Statistical Mechanics.” In The Ashgate Companion to Contemporary Philosophy of Physics, ed. Rickles, D., 99–196. London: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Hemmo, Meir, and Shenker, Orly. 2006. “Maxwell's Demon.” Preprint, PhilSci Archive, http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00003795/.Google Scholar
Jaynes, Edwin T. 1965/1983. “Gibbs vs Boltzmann Entropies.” In E.T. Jaynes: Papers on Probability, Statistics and Statistical Physics, ed. Rosenkrantz, R. D., 77–86. Repr. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Lavis, David A. 2005. “Boltzmann and Gibbs: An Attempted Reconciliation.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 36:245–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loschmidt, J. Josef. 1876–77. “Über die Zustand des Wärmegleichgewichtes eines Systems von Körpern mit Rücksicht auf die Schwerkraft.” Wiener Berichte 73:128–42, 366–72; 75:287–98; 76:209–25.Google Scholar
Norton, John D. 2005. “Eaters of the Lotus: Landauer's Principle and the Return of Maxwell's Demon.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 36:375–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Planck, Max. 1901. “Über das Gesetz der Energieverteilung im Normalspektrum.” Drudes Annalen 309:553–62.Google Scholar
Planck, Max. 1906. Theorie der Wärmestrahlung. Leipzig: Barth. Trans. M. Masius, The Theory of Heat Radiation, New York: Dover, 1991.Google Scholar
Poincaré, Henri. 1890. “Sur le Problème des Trois Corps et les Équations de la Dynamique.” Acta Mathematica 13:1–270.Google Scholar
Swendsen, Robert H. 2008. “Gibbs’ Paradox and the Definition of Entropy.” Entropy 10:15–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar