Who's Afraid of Maxwell's Demon—and Which One?

Abstract
In 1866 J.C. Maxwell thought he had discovered a Maxwellian demon—though not under that description, of course [1]. He thought that the temperature of a gas under gravity would vary inversely with the height of the column. From this he saw that it would then be possible to obtain energy for work from a cooling gas, a clear violation of Thompson’s statement of the second law of thermodynamics. This upsetting conclusion made him worry that “there remains as far as I can see a collision between Dynamics and thermodynamics.” Later, he derived the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution law that made the temperature the same throughout the column. However, he continued to think about the relationship between dynamics and thermodynamics, and in 1867, he sent Tait a note with a puzzle for him to ponder. The puzzle was his famous “neat-fingered being” who could make a hot system hotter and a cold system colder without any work being done. Thompson in 1874 christened this being a “demon”; Maxwell unsuccessfully tried to rename it “valve.” However named, the demon’s point was to “show that the second law of thermodynamics has only a statistical validity.” Since that time a large physics literature has arisen that asks a question similar to that asked in theology, namely, does the devil exist? Beginning with Popper, philosophers examining the literature on Maxwell’s demon are typically surprised—even horrified [2,3,4,5,6,7]. As a philosopher speaking at a physics conference exactly 100 yrs after Popper’s birth, I want to explain why this is so. The organizers of this conference instructed me to offend everyone, believers and non-believers in demons. Thus my talk, apart from an agnostic middle section, contains a section offending those who believe they have exorcized the demon and a section offending those who summon demons. Throughout the central idea will be to clearly distinguish the various second laws and the various demons..
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
Options
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history Request removal from index Translate to english
 
Download options
PhilPapers Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy on self-archival     Papers currently archived: 11,404
External links
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library
References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Similar books and articles
Orly Shenker & Meir Hemmo (2011). Maxwell's Demon. Journal of Philosophy 107 (8):389-411.
Richard Laing (1974). Maxwell's Demon and Computation. Philosophy of Science 41 (2):171-178.
J. Earman & D. J. (1998). Exorcist XIV: The Wrath of Maxwell's Demon. Part I. From Maxwell to Szilard. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B 29 (4):435-471.
John Collier (1990). Two Faces of Maxwell's Demon Reveal the Nature of Irreversibility. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 21 (2):257-268.
H. C. (2003). Notes on Landauer's Principle, Reversible Computation, and Maxwell's Demon. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B 34 (3):501-510.
John D. Norton (2005). Eaters of the Lotus: Landauer's Principle and the Return of Maxwell's Demon. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B 36 (2):375-411.
Analytics

Monthly downloads

Added to index

2010-12-22

Total downloads

17 ( #99,231 of 1,103,010 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

2 ( #183,252 of 1,103,010 )

How can I increase my downloads?

My notes
Sign in to use this feature


Discussion
Start a new thread
Order:
There  are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.