David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawa
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
The problem of relation between statistical mechanics (SM) and classical mechanics (CM), especially the question whether SM can be founded on CM, has been a subject of controversies since the rise of classical statistical mechanics (CSM) at the end of 19th century. The first views rejecting explicitly the possibility of laying the foundations of CSM in CM were triggered by the "Wiederkehr-" and "Umkehreinwand" arguments. These arguments played an important role in the debate about Boltzmann's original H-theorem and led to the so called statistical H-theorem proposed by Boltzmann himself. (For the history of these early debates we refer to Brush's monograph (Brush 1976).) After CSM had been brought to "canonical form" by the Ehrenfests, (Ehrenfest and Ehrenfest 1959) the physicists turned away from the foundational problem leaving it to mathematicians to worry about in the form of what has become called the ergodic theory. In retrospect, the physicists' general mood seems to have been the hope that ergodic theory establishes rigorously what is needed to found CSM on CM and which had been expressed essentially by Boltzmann already (Wightman 1985). However, very few physicists followed closely the developments in the mathematical theory of dynamic systems. One of those who did was the Russian physicist N.S. Krylov. (For a brief description of Krylov's personal life we refer to the papers in (Krylov 1979).).
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
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
Stephen Leeds (2003). Foundations of Statistical Mechanics—Two Approaches. Philosophy of Science 70 (1):126-144.
Robert W. Batterman (1990). Irreversibility and Statistical Mechanics: A New Approach? Philosophy of Science 57 (3):395-419.
John Earman & Miklós Rédei (1996). Why Ergodic Theory Does Not Explain the Success of Equilibrium Statistical Mechanics. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 47 (1):63-78.
Nicholas Maxwell (1975). Does the Minimal Statistical Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics Resolve the Measurement Problem? Methodology and Science 8:84-101.
Orly R. Shenker & Meir Hemmo, Prediction and Retrodiction in Boltzmann's Approach to Classical Statistical Mechanics.
Craig Callender (2007). The Emergence and Interpretation of Probability in Bohmian Mechanics. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B 38 (2):351-370.
Jan Von Plato (1982). Probability and Determinism. Philosophy of Science 49 (1):51-66.
J. T. Ismael (2009). Probability in Deterministic Physics. Journal of Philosophy 106 (2):89-108.
John T. Bruer (1982). The Classical Limit of Quantum Theory. Synthese 50 (2):167 - 212.
Jenann Ismael (2009). Probability in Deterministic Physics. Journal of Philosophy 106 (2):89-108.
Aidan Lyon (2010). Deterministic Probability: Neither Chance nor Credence. Synthese 182 (3):413-432.
Michal Tempczyk (1991). Random Dynamics and the Research Programme of Classical Mechanics. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 5 (3):227 – 239.
Added to index2010-12-22
Total downloads48 ( #99,357 of 1,941,042 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #334,047 of 1,941,042 )
How can I increase my downloads?