On the Need to Insert the Concept of Relativity in Thermodynamics Courses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 dUirr = dUrev classically interpreted as the formulation of the first law must be substituted by the inequality dUirr > dUrev. Writing this last expression under the form dUirr = dUrev + dUadd, the question asked concerns the origin of the additional energy noted dUadd,. The suggested answer is that dUadd is a consequence of the Einstein mass-energy relation E = mc2. This would mean that the laws of thermodynamics are closely linked to the concept of relativity and that the difference dUirr - dUrev can also be formulated dUirr = dUrev - c2dm. 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.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.007 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".