The phase rule and the notion of substance
| Abstract | In response to difficulties in understanding the notion of chemical substance at issue in Gibbs’ phase rule, there is a long tradition of reformulating the simple statement of the rule. The leading idea is to rewrite the rule with a term for the number of substances actually present and to introduce additional terms making explicit the various kinds of restrictions which in the original formulation are taken to be incorporated into Gibbs’ notion of the number of independent substances. Although the number of independent substances cannot in general be interpreted as the number of substances actually present, it is not an entirely derivative concept as the authors of the reformulations sometimes seem to presuppose. In particular, it is doubtful whether the number of substances actually present is a clearly delimited concept which can be determined prior to the application of the phase rule. In that case, the phase rule provides a useful source of information for the determination of the number and nature of the substances actually present in a mixture which should be properly reflected in an adequate interpretation of Gibbs’ notion of independent substances. For this purpose, I propose a mereological interpretation of the way independent substances are related to the substances actually present which makes sense of the fact that the former are not uniquely fixed but can be chosen from the latter in several ways. | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,701 |
| External links |
  Try with proxy. |
| Through your library | Only published papers are available at libraries |
Similar books and articlesAri Maunu (2008). Leibniz's Theory of Universal Expression Explicated. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 38 (2):247-267.
Phil Corkum (forthcoming). Substance and Independence in Aristotle. In B. Schnieder, A. Steinberg & M. Hoeltje (eds.), Ontological Dependence, Supervenience, and Response-Dependence. Basic Philosophical Concepts Series, Philosophia Verlag.
Jonathan Bennett (1965). A Note on Descartes and Spinoza. Philosophical Review 74 (3):379-380.
Andree Hahmann (2009). Die Reaktion der Spekulativen Weltweisheit: Kant Und Die Kritik an den Einfachen Substanzen. Kant-Studien 100 (4):454-475.
Ian J. Thompson (1988). The Nature of Substance. Cogito 2 (2):17-19.
Andrej Krause (2006). Are Bolzano's Substances Simple? American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly 80 (4):543-562.
Phil Corkum (2008). Aristotle on Ontological Dependence. Phronesis 53 (1):65-92.
P. Needham (2010). Substance and Time. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 61 (3):485-512.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2010-03-25Total downloads11 ( #99,573 of 549,124 )Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,361 of 549,124 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
