Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T00:18:14.079Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On Jaynes's Unbelievably Short Proof of the Second Law

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Daniel Parker
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article investigates Jaynes's “unbelievably short proof” of the second law of thermodynamics. It assesses published criticisms of the proof and concludes that these criticisms miss the mark by demanding results that either import expectations of a proof not consistent with an information-theoretic approach or would require assumptions not employed in the proof itself, as it looks only to establish a weaker conclusion. Finally, a weakness in the proof is identified and illustrated. This weakness stems from the fact the Jaynes's assumption of unitary evolution is too strong given his perspective, rather than too weak to provide the desired results.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 78 , Issue 5 , December 2011 , pp. 1058 - 1069
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 Wayne Myrvold for his comments on a draft of this article.

References

Earman, J. 1986. “The Problem of Irreversibility.” PSA 1986: Proceedings of the 1986 Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, Vol. 2, ed. Fine, Arthur and Machamer, Peter K., 226–33. East Lansing, MI: Philosophy of Science Association.Google Scholar
Frigg, R. 2008. “A Field Guide to Recent Work on the Foundations of Statistical Mechanics.” In Ashgate Companion to Philosophy of Physics, ed. Rickles, D.. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Hobson, A., and Loomis, D. N.. 1968. “Exact Classical Nonequilibrium Statistical-Mechanical Analysis of the Finite Ideal Gas.” Physical Review 173:285–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaynes, E. T. 1963. “Information Theory and Statistical Mechanics.” In 1962 Brandeis Summer Institute in Theoretical Physics, ed. Ford, K.. New York: Benjamin. Repr. in Papers on Probability, Statistics and Statistical Physics, ed. R. D. Rosenkrantz (Dordrecht: Reidel, 1983).Google Scholar
Jaynes, E. T.. 1965/1983. “Gibbs vs. Boltzmann Entropies.” In Papers on Probability, Statistics and Statistical Physics, ed. Rosenkrantz, R. D., 391–98. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Jaynes, E. T.. 1979/1983. “Where Do We Stand on Maximium Entropy?” In Papers on Probability, Statistics and Statistical Physics, ed. Rosenkrantz, R. D.. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Lavis, D., and Milligan, P.. 1985. “Essay Review of Jaynes's Collected Papers.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 36:193–210.Google Scholar
Ridderbos, K. 2002. “The Coarse-Graining Approach to Statistical Mechanics: How Blissful Is Our Ignorance?” Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 33:65–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ridderbos, T. M., and Redhead, M. L. G.. 1998. “The Spin Echo Experiments and the Second Law of Thermodynamics.” Foundations of Physics 28:1237–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robertson, B. 1966. “Equations of Motion in Nonequilibrium Statistical Mechanics.” Physical Review 144:151–61.Google Scholar
Sklar, L. 1993. Physics and Chance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uffink, J. 2001. “Bluff Your Way in the Second Law of Thermodynamics.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 32:305–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar