Content deleted Content added
Chjoaygame (talk | contribs) →cards on the table: see below |
Chjoaygame (talk | contribs) →cards on the table: thinking it over: a side-track? |
||
Line 823:
::::::In general, an instantaneous microstate, aka 'point in the trajectory', does not have a physical entropy. There is no reason to try to calculate it. Physical entropy is a property of a trajectory, which can be identified by the law of motion that generates it. That's how present day mathematicians do it.[[User:Chjoaygame|Chjoaygame]] ([[User talk:Chjoaygame|talk]]) 20:51, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
::::::Thinking it over.
::::::Above, I wrote “In examples with several particles that can be excited or de-excited in a collision, collisions generate various speeds, so that a more complicated phase space is required. This excitation–de-excitation possibility dispels the mystery of why systems that lack it do not show the usual phenomena. See below.”
::::::Yes, such excitation and de-excitation brings in a topic from which I am topic banned. I might write more about it were I not banned. It does indeed make the business stochastic, and probabilistic. This blows away some of my above reasoning. Cercignani mentions some curious closely relevant facts without explaining them. A quietly historically recognised example is the case of the inverse fifth power particle force law. It was early recognised, I think by Maxwell, as exactly solvable, and does not show the expected spreading. For this reason, it is not widely celebrated; indeed it is often not mentioned. Now for the first time I understand it; I don't recall reading this explanation. Avoiding [[WP:OR]], I guess someone will fill me in on it. It may deserve specific explicit appearance in the article. But it does not detract from the main concern here, about physical entropy being a property of a trajectory, not of an instantaneous microstate.[[User:Chjoaygame|Chjoaygame]] ([[User talk:Chjoaygame|talk]]) 21:48, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
== Outstanding questions ==
| |||