On the Need to Insert the Concept of Relativity in Thermodynamics Courses
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p>Contrary to the first law of thermodynamics which is generally considered as easily understandable, the second law is often felt as raising conceptual difficulties. It can be noted that their usual presentation is not homogeneous, since the expressions referring to the first law are generally energy equations, while those referring to the second law are entropy equations. If we give to the second law the form of an energy equation, it seems that we are led to extend the significance of the first law. The reason is that, doing so, the change in internal energy corresponding to a given process appears to be different as we are in conditions of irreversibility or of reversibility. In thermodynamic language, this is a way to say that the equality <em>dU<sub>irr</sub> = dU<sub>rev</sub></em> classically interpreted as the formulation of the first law must be substituted by the inequality <em>dU<sub>irr</sub> &gt; dU<sub>rev</sub></em>. Writing this last expression under the form<em> dU<sub>irr</sub> = dU<sub>rev</sub></em> <em>+ dU<sub>add</sub></em>, the question asked concerns the origin of the additional energy noted <em>dU<sub>add</sub></em>,. The suggested answer is that <em>dU<sub>add</sub></em> is a consequence of the Einstein mass-energy relation <em>E = mc<sup>2</sup></em>. This would mean that the laws of thermodynamics are closely linked to the concept of relativity and that the difference <em>dU<sub>irr</sub> - dU<sub>rev</sub></em> can also be formulated <em>dU<sub>irr</sub> = dU<sub>rev</sub></em> <em>- c<sup>2</sup>dm. </em>Such an interpretation was evidently impossible for the creators of the thermodynamic theory, since relativity was unknown at that time. The aim of the present paper is to detail the reasons which lead to this hypothesis, with the hope that it can be felt as a clarification and extension of the theory.</p>
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it