Ive read a few courses on statistical mechanics, and while their textual explanations and example choices differ, the flow of information from microscopy to macroscopy seems the same, and reading between the lines you can see some mathematical construct. Has statistical mechanics been formalized in the sense that say analysis has been formalized (down to quantifiers, sets, functions,...) more rigorously? Where can one find a formal axiomatic approach to statistical mechanics as opposed to an introductory descriptory approach?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
-
I have an hydrogenic atom, knowing that its ground-state wavefunction has the standard form $$ \psi = A e^{-\beta r} $$ with $A = \frac{\bet...
-
I stand up and I look at two parallel railroad tracks. I find that converge away from me. Why? Can someone explain me why parallel lines s...
-
At room temperature, play-dough is solid(ish). But if you make a thin strip it cannot just stand up on it's own, so is it still solid? O...
-
This image from NASA illustrates drag coefficients for several shapes: It is generally accepted that some variation of the teardrop/airfoil...
-
Sorry if this question is a bit broad but I can't find any info on this by just searching. The equation q = neAL where L is the length o...
-
Sometimes I am born in silence, Other times, no. I am unseen, But I make my presence known. In time, I fade without a trace. I harm no one, ...
-
I want to know what happens to the space a black hole crosses over as our galaxy travels through space.
No comments:
Post a Comment