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)
-
A rook stands in the lower left corner of an $m\times n$ chessboard. Alice and Bob alternately move the rook (horizontally or vertically, th...
-
Why can't we use fissions products for electricity production ? As far has I know fissions products from current nuclear power plants cr...
-
Yesterday, I understood what it means to say that the moon is constantly falling (from a lecture by Richard Feynman ). In the picture below ...
-
Recently I was going through "Problems in General physics" by I E Irodov. In Electromagnetics chapter, there is a question how muc...
-
(The puzzle statement now identifies these numbers as equivalent.) O O ...
-
if $\vec L=I\vec ω$ holds good in all the cases then directions of angular momentum and angular velocity must be parallel always which is no...
-
I am having trouble understanding how centripetal force works intuitively. This is my claim. When I have a mass strapped on a string and spi...
No comments:
Post a Comment