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...
-
I am researching Mercury's orbital precession. I have considered most perturbations and general relativity. I am still not satisfied. I ...
-
(The puzzle statement now identifies these numbers as equivalent.) O O ...
-
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...
-
Yesterday, I understood what it means to say that the moon is constantly falling (from a lecture by Richard Feynman ). In the picture below ...
-
In this question/answer Does someone falling into a black hole see the end of the universe? , it is stated that an observer free falling tow...
-
A crime has been carried out by one person, there are 5 suspects. Each suspect is asked under polygraph who they think committed the crime. ...
No comments:
Post a Comment