Abstract
IN common, I am sure, with all the physical readers of NATURE, I have read Herr Boltzmann's letter with great interest. And I am glad to observe that, though he appears to think I differ from him, that part of his letter which chiefly deals with my criticism on Dr. Watson's idea of what “Boltzmann's Minimum Theorem” is, is simply putting forward, with all his great authority, the view for which I contended. But it is a little hard that Dr. Boltzmann should represent me as endeavouring to disprove his theorem when I expressly stated that while I did not know his proof, I supposed that it was all right. True, I said that I found it hard to conceive how any proof on the lines of Dr. Watson's could be valid because that proof appeared to me to be a purely dynamical proof, and I applied the reversibility argument to show that a purely dynamical proof was impossible, so that the H-theorem could not be a purely dynamical theorem; and after indicating the lines on which it appeared that there might be an average dynamical theorem, I asked if some one would say what the H-theorem really was.
Article PDF
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
CULVERWELL, E. Professor Boltzmann's Letter on the Kinetic Theory of Gases. Nature 51, 581 (1895). https://doi.org/10.1038/051581a0
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/051581a0
This article is cited by
-
?Will someone say exactly what the H-theorem proves?? A study of Burbury's Condition A and Maxwell's Proposition II
Archive for History of Exact Sciences (1994)
Comments
By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.