Feynman Lectures and the Zeroth Law of Thermodynamics

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the Zeroth Law of Thermodynamics as referenced in the Feynman Lectures on Physics, particularly in relation to its proof and connection to Newton's laws of motion and the equipartition theorem. Participants explore the complexity of proving the Zeroth Law and its implications for thermal equilibrium.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant notes Feynman's caveat regarding the assumption of thermal equilibrium and questions its relation to the Zeroth Law of Thermodynamics.
  • Another participant suggests a connection between the Zeroth Law and the equipartition theorem, seeking clarification on their relationship.
  • Some participants agree that the Zeroth Law is indeed the topic at hand and emphasize the complexity of its proof, which involves defining equilibrium through macroscopic thermodynamic variables derived from microscopic variables.
  • Further inquiries are made about the specific nature of the proof, the role of advanced mechanics, and why quantum mechanics may simplify the proof compared to classical mechanics.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree that the discussion pertains to the Zeroth Law of Thermodynamics and acknowledge the complexity of its proof. However, there is no consensus on the specifics of the proof or the relationship to other concepts like the equipartition theorem.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights the dependence on advanced mechanics for proving the Zeroth Law and the unresolved nature of the proof's details, including the transition from microscopic to macroscopic variables.

lugita15
Messages
1,553
Reaction score
15
In Volume 1 of the Feynman Lectures on Physics, Feynman derives the ideal gas law from Newton's laws of motion. But then on page 41-1, he puts a caveat to the derivation he has just completed: "We have perpetually been making a certain important assumption, which is that if a given system is in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature, it will also be in equilibrium with anything else at the same temperature ... This proposition is true and can be proven from the laws of mechanics, but the proof is very complicated and can be established only by using advanced mechanics. It is much easier to prove in quantum mechanics than it is in classical mechanics. It was proved first by Boltzmann, but for now we simply take it to be true."

Does anyone know what Feynman is talking about? Is he referring to the Zeroth Law of Thermodynamics? Can it be proved using Newton's laws of motion, and is the proof really complicated? Where can I find this proof?

Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Thank You in Advance.
 
Science news on Phys.org
I've done some reading about Boltzmann, and I'm thinking that this may have something to do with the equipartition theorem. Is the equipartition theorem in any way connected to the zeroth law?
 
I think you have it right - its the zeroth law of thermodynamics.

The proof of the zeroth law is complicated - because it involves showing that there is a function of the (macroscopic) thermodynamic variables which can be used to define equilibrium (this function is the temperature) starting from microscopic variables (for instance the positions and momenta of all the molecules making up a gas).
 
ogion said:
I think you have it right - its the zeroth law of thermodynamics.

The proof of the zeroth law is complicated - because it involves showing that there is a function of the (macroscopic) thermodynamic variables which can be used to define equilibrium (this function is the temperature) starting from microscopic variables (for instance the positions and momenta of all the molecules making up a gas).
Where can I find this proof of the zeroth law from Newton's laws? Why does it require "advanced mechanics" (which I assume refers to Lagrangians and Hamiltonians) and why is it easier if you start from quantum mechanics instead?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K