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)
-
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 ...
-
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...
-
As the title says. It is common sense that sharp things cut, but how do they work at the atomical level? Answer For organic matter, such a...
-
How can we know the order of a Feynman diagram just from the pictorial representation? Is it the number of vertices divided by 2? For exampl...
-
Literature states neutral pion decay by QED cannot occur directly because the pion is uncharged. However, I cannot see why Photons are not a...
-
Recently I was going through "Problems in General physics" by I E Irodov. In Electromagnetics chapter, there is a question how muc...
No comments:
Post a Comment