Timeline for Loschmidt's paradox - really a paradox? [duplicate]
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
14 events
when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Jul 8, 2020 at 12:06 | comment | added | Milan | @YvanVelenik Great, thanks! | |
Jul 8, 2020 at 7:49 | comment | added | Yvan Velenik | @Milan : Well, it was a while ago, so I don't remember. It could be Goldstein's paper in this book. But there are other nice papers addressing this topic by Lebowitz or Bricmont for instance (examples: this one and that one). | |
Jul 8, 2020 at 1:18 | comment | added | Milan | @YvanVelenik What paper were you referencing? The link is dead. | |
May 5, 2013 at 9:21 | history | closed | Qmechanic♦ | exact duplicate | |
May 5, 2013 at 9:21 | history | edited | Qmechanic♦ | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
paradox tag is not allowed
|
May 2, 2013 at 15:57 | history | edited | Jim |
edited tags
|
|
S Aug 14, 2012 at 0:24 | review | Close votes | |||
Aug 25, 2012 at 3:04 | |||||
S Aug 14, 2012 at 0:24 | review | Low quality answers | |||
Aug 24, 2012 at 3:04 | |||||
Aug 6, 2012 at 1:47 | answer | added | Fortsaint | timeline score: 3 | |
Jun 29, 2012 at 14:08 | comment | added | Yvan Velenik | No, it is considered irrelevant today. See, e.g., this paper. Of course, this does not imply that the problem of the foundations of statistical physics has been settled (in particular, the proper interpretation of probabilities in the theory). | |
Jun 29, 2012 at 9:59 | comment | added | user10176 | Well, for finite bounded closed systems, there's Poincare recurrences... | |
Jun 29, 2012 at 9:54 | history | edited | Qmechanic♦ | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
retagged; removed greeting;
|
Jun 29, 2012 at 9:53 | comment | added | Qmechanic♦ | Possible duplicate: physics.stackexchange.com/q/19970/2451 | |
Jun 29, 2012 at 8:55 | history | asked | Jack Layton | CC BY-SA 3.0 |