1 12 PDF

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 12

1 / VOL. 1, NO.

4 ISSN 1430-4171
THE CHEMICAL EDUCATOR http://journals.springer-ny.com/chedr
© 1996 SPRINGER-VERLAG NEW YORK, INC. 10.1007/s00897960049a

Chemistry and History

The Curious
Incident of the Dog
in the Night-Time or
What Lessons Lurk
in Old Textbooks
STEPHEN J. WEININGER
Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry
Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Worcester, MA 01609-2280
stevejw@wpi.edu

T
his article examines the early presentation of the
The term Second Law of Thermodynamics in physical
entropy and its chemistry textbooks published between 1900 and
1926. It explains how the concept of entropy emerged
associated from obscurity to become a familiar idea and describes how
analyzing the history of the development of scientific concepts
concept have
can uncover hidden “lessons” about how ideas are formulated,
been with us digested, and finally accepted.

for 130 years


[Colonel Ross]: “Is there any other point to which you
and the Second would wish to draw my attention?”

Law for 15 [Holmes]: “To the curious incident of the dog in the
night-time.”
years longer.
2 / VOL. 1, NO. 4 ISSN 1430-4171
THE CHEMICAL EDUCATOR http://journals.springer-ny.com/chedr
© 1996 SPRINGER-VERLAG NEW YORK, INC. S 1430-4171 (96) 04049-6

[Colonel Ross]: “The dog did nothing in the night-time.”

“That was the curious incident,” remarked Sherlock Holmes.

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, The Adventure of Silver Blaze [1]

Any current general chemistry textbook worthy of the name at least introduces students
to the concept of entropy, and it usually provides them with some examples of its use
[2]. One thermodynamics text intended for first-year students even organizes its
discussion principally around entropy [3]. Furthermore, the inclusion of entropy in the
first-year chemistry curriculum is hardly a new development, dating back at least to
Pauling’s seminal general chemistry book [4]. Discussions of entropy have even
emerged in the high school curriculum [5]. Moreover, entropy took its place in the
physical chemistry curriculum long before it was a subject for first-year or high school
chemistry students. The meaning of entropy and of the Second Law of Thermodynamics
now constitute part of the basic conceptual foundation for any student learning about
science.

None of this would seem to qualify as news. The term entropy and its associated concept
have been with us for 130 years and the Second Law for 15 years longer (Table 1).
Historians also generally agree that one reason why physical chemistry developed as an
autonomous discipline was its founders’ desire to apply thermodynamics to chemical
problems [6], yet the prominence of entropy in the chemical curriculum was achieved
only after decades of doubt about its utility in chemistry.

In April, 1994 the Dibner Institute for the History of Science and Technology at MIT
held a two-day workshop constructed around “The Meaning and Use of Entropy.” I was
a commentator in a session devoted to chemistry, in which papers were presented by
Helge Kragh (a well known historian of the physical sciences) and Laszlo Tisza (a
distinguished thermodynamicist who has been studying the history of thermodynamics).

Because my career has involved principally teaching and writing textbooks about
chemistry, which covered neither thermodynamics nor history of science, it seemed as if
I could make a useful contribution by investigating how entropy had been taught to
chemistry students. To this end I gathered together and examined those physical
chemistry textbooks published during the period 1900–1926. The results of my
explorations were puzzling. In many texts entropy and the Second Law were treated
3 / VOL. 1, NO. 4 ISSN 1430-4171
THE CHEMICAL EDUCATOR http://journals.springer-ny.com/chedr
© 1996 SPRINGER-VERLAG NEW YORK, INC. S 1430-4171 (96) 04049-6

TABLE 1. Major events in the early history of the entropy concept.

1824 CARNOT PUBLISHES REFLECTIONS ON THE MOTIVE POWER OF


HEAT: it contains the Second Law of thermodynamics avant la lettre.

1850 CLAUSIUS AND THOMSON (LORD KELVIN) STATE THE SECOND


LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS.

1865 CLAUSIUS ENUNCIATES THE ENTROPY CONCEPT: "THE


ENTROPY OF THE UNIVERSE TENDS TOWARD A MAXIMUM." (NB:
the entropy "law" is the major scientific law that is not a conservation
law.)

1875 GIBBS DEFINES FREE ENERGY AND ITS RELATION TO Keq.

1877 BOLTZMANN'S STATISTICAL DEFINITION OF ENTROPY:


S = k ln w.

1906 NERNST STATES THE THIRD LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS:


 du   dA 
lim   = lim   = 0
T → 0  dt  T → 0  dt 

only perfunctorily, and in some the word “entropy” was not to be found at all.
Independently, Kragh had also concluded that entropy did not play much of a role in
early theoretical and physical chemistry [7].

Why, for early 20th century chemists, did entropy seemed to resemble nothing so much
as “the dog in the night-time,” notable mainly for its silence? Our curiosity led Kragh
and me to undertake a review of the development of chemical thermodynamics and its
treatment in textbooks during the period 1900–1925 [8]. The “story” we uncovered was
richer and more nuanced than our initial sketch, without contradicting the latter’s
essential message—entropy was a topic that many of our chemical forebears shied away
from, even to the point of ignoring it altogether. I concentrated on analyzing the two
dozen or so textbooks, from which I drew the “lessons” that are the subject of this
article.
4 / VOL. 1, NO. 4 ISSN 1430-4171
THE CHEMICAL EDUCATOR http://journals.springer-ny.com/chedr
© 1996 SPRINGER-VERLAG NEW YORK, INC. S 1430-4171 (96) 04049-6

In current texts the Second Law of Thermodynamics is routinely equated with the law of
increasing entropy. That conflation is not only conceptually wrong but also historically
misleading [9]. When the Second Law was first propounded by Rudolf Clausius and
William Thomson around 1850, entropy was unknown, both as a concept and as a name.
Clausius’ formulation of 1850 stressed the natural tendency of heat to equalize
temperature or the impossibility for a self-acting cyclic machine to transfer heat from a
body at a certain temperature to a body at a higher temperature. According to
Thomson’s equivalent formulation of 1852, it is impossible to gain work by cooling
matter below the temperature of the coldest of its surroundings. What Clausius and
Thomson enshrined as scientific law was, of course, “common sense”—everyone knew
that warm bodies naturally transfer heat to colder ones and not vice versa. My first
“lesson” is that many scientific laws are based upon commonplace observations. What
distinguishes scientists from lay people is less our observational abilities than our
creativity at extracting the long range and not so obvious consequences of those
observations.

Furthermore, it requires a major intellectual effort to connect commonplace observations


with the more abstract, albeit very powerful “scientific” theories such as Boltzmann’s
statistical conception of entropy. In the classroom we do not customarily discuss the
difficulties entailed in that effort—it takes time away from “problem solving.” As a
result, many students believe that their failure to grasp the fundamental premises of the
Second Law is due to their incompetence. The problem may rather lie with the
complexity of the reasoning that ties those premises to everyday experience.

Kragh and I were struck early on by the variety of expositions that the Second Law
received. This was true both in the research literature and in textbooks where one might
have expected a more uniform treatment. While the First Law was presented in a manner
that varied little from one text to the next, diverse versions of the Second Law were
commonplace over a span of decades (Table 2). The “lesson” to be learned here is that
such inconsistent presentation frequently indicates that the concept itself is difficult and a
likely source of confusion for the student. This certainly seemed to be the view of a
number of the authors who referred to the Second Law as “far from simple,” “a difficult
subject,” “difficult to grasp,” and so on.
5 / VOL. 1, NO. 4 ISSN 1430-4171
THE CHEMICAL EDUCATOR http://journals.springer-ny.com/chedr
© 1996 SPRINGER-VERLAG NEW YORK, INC. S 1430-4171 (96) 04049-6

TABLE 2. A potpourri of expressions of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Heat passes of itself from a warm body to a cold one and not in an inverse
direction.
Clausius, 1850

It is impossible, by means of inanimate agency, to derive mechanical effect from


any portion of matter by cooling it below the temperature of the coldest of the
surrounding objects.
W. Thomson (Lord Kelvin), 1854

Heat can never pass from a colder to a warmer body without some change,
connected with it, occurring at the same time.
Clausius, 1854

The energy of the universe is constant; the entropy tends toward a maximum.
Clausius, 1865

S (entropy) = k ln W (probability).
Boltzmann, 1877

The transformation value of a modification is equal to the diminution that a


certain magnitude, connected with all the properties that fix the system but
independent of its motion, undergoes through this modification.
Duhem, 1902

An isolated system never passes twice through the same state.


Perrin, 1903

The total energy of the universe is a constant, but... the available energy of the
world is constantly decreasing.
Washburn, 1915

We sought some clues to this lack of conceptual uniformity in the historical development
of thermodynamics. Chemical thermodynamics developed along two rather divergent
lines in the late 19th century. One “axis” was represented by the work of Gibbs,
Helmholtz, Duhem, and Planck, in which general and sometimes abstract
thermodynamic derivations were couched in mathematically complex expressions. We
6 / VOL. 1, NO. 4 ISSN 1430-4171
THE CHEMICAL EDUCATOR http://journals.springer-ny.com/chedr
© 1996 SPRINGER-VERLAG NEW YORK, INC. S 1430-4171 (96) 04049-6

might label this approach the physicalist tradition. The alternative approach, the
chemical tradition, is exemplified by the writings of van’t Hoff and Nernst. Their
approach was less rigorous, less mathematical, and more closely tied to specific
empirical data. Van’t Hoff had little to say about entropy, but Nernst was pretty overt in
his disdain for it:

This conception [entropy decrease] is not, however, more general than that of
decrease of free energy.... All results so far known in thermodynamics can be
deduced by means of cyclic process…many authors take results which
already have been firmly established by means of cyclic processes, and
reestablish them by application of the entropy principle.... From a pedagogic
point of view a certain value may be attached to such “stricter proofs,” but
usually the only thing that is proved is that the author has studied the work of
his predecessors with intelligence [10].

Nernst’s scant regard for entropy must seem puzzling if not bizarre to a contemporary
audience that identifies him as the creator of the Third Law of Thermodynamics. Here
again, what passes for convenient pedagogy is in fact bad history, and it may not be all
that good even as pedagogy. The version of the Third Law that says that the entropy of
perfect crystals is zero at absolute zero is Planck’s reworking of Nernst’s original
statement [11]. The original dealt with free energy and heat capacity and didn’t mention
entropy (Table 1)! Nernst neither liked nor accepted Planck’s restatement [12], which to
Nernst was an example of the kind of bold speculation by a physicist that went against
what he saw as the proper treatment of chemical phenomena.

Uncovering this discrepancy between myth and history prompted another “lesson.”
Disciplines such as chemistry and physics are distinguished less by their content than by
the analytic tools and styles of reasoning they employ. In particular, chemists often shy
away from concepts that cannot be readily translated into an operational form, and this
bias was one major reason for their reluctance to embrace entropy. Devotion to a
characteristic style of reasoning has certainly provided chemistry with enormous
strengths and some distinct limitations as well. On the credit side, the molecular
viewpoint enables us to tie together a tremendous range of phenomena. As a chemist I
am aware of and grateful for the power inherent in the molecular approach to matter. It
was, therefore, initially puzzling to me to find that Boltzmann’s probabilistic formulation
of the entropy law met with particularly strong resistance among most authors of
physical chemistry and chemical thermodynamics textbooks. Boltzmann’s approach is
after all a molecular one, and one might reasonably have expected chemists to embrace
7 / VOL. 1, NO. 4 ISSN 1430-4171
THE CHEMICAL EDUCATOR http://journals.springer-ny.com/chedr
© 1996 SPRINGER-VERLAG NEW YORK, INC. S 1430-4171 (96) 04049-6

it. The problem, however, arises from its dependence on probabilistic thinking and
statistical calculation [13].

Chemists have a long explanatory tradition that relies on discussions of individual


molecules. Although we know intellectually that our domain almost always comprises
very large aggregates of molecules, we still rely on deterministic explanations of
chemical behavior that invoke the individual molecule as the unit of explanation. (This
“lesson” is still very relevant today.) Fixated as they were on the properties of individual
molecules, our predecessors found it difficult to reconcile their molecular explanations of
chemical phenomena with Boltzmann’s statistical approach, making them very hesitant
toward his treatment of entropy.

It became clear to Kragh and me that chemists’ pre–World War I wariness toward the
entropy concept arose from a multitude of concerns. Some were very specific — for
instance, entropy changes could be determined for only a very few processes, and, once
measured, they could not be meaningfully interpreted because of the undifferentiated
nature of the entropy concept prior to quantum mechanics. There were, however, other
less specific, but no less important, sources of disquiet. For instance, Jean Perrin thought
it “risky to speak of the entropy of a living system or of an exploding system,” and saw
in the Carnot cycle “a principle of life and of evolution” [14]. Even J. R. Partington, a
physical chemist (and later preeminent historian of chemistry) who was in a minority in
the attention he paid to entropy in his prewar textbook, wondered “whether the second
law is applicable to living systems” and “whether it can be enunciated in such a way that
the subjective content is eliminated...” [15].

K. G. Denbigh and J. S. Denbigh have shown how the notion of randomness associated
with Boltzmann’s formulation of entropy became transmuted into “lack of knowledge”
and eventually into “subjectivity” [16]. There was uncertainty as to whether entropy is a
property of the physical or of the psychological world, and leading scientists as well as
lay people doubted that living systems were subject to the law of entropy increase.

The global, even “cosmic,” aspects of the Second Law and the entropy principle
grabbed the attention of the lay public as well as scientists, and this led to an enormous
rash of speculation regarding its meaning and significance [17]. Probably the most
famous example of this is Kelvin’s notion of the “heat death” of the universe. These
speculations ranged from the insightful to the provocative to the near preposterous [18].
8 / VOL. 1, NO. 4 ISSN 1430-4171
THE CHEMICAL EDUCATOR http://journals.springer-ny.com/chedr
© 1996 SPRINGER-VERLAG NEW YORK, INC. S 1430-4171 (96) 04049-6

What impressed me is near total lack of allusion to them in the textbooks I reviewed,
from which I concluded that these speculations were not welcomed by most chemists.
Chemists then (and perhaps also now?) were very concerned about the status of
chemistry as a “real science” and extremely nervous about its being in any way
associated with lack of knowledge, subjectivity, or vitalism. To them the entropy
concept must have seemed not only confusing but dangerous.

As we know entropy was finally incorporated into chemical practice and pedagogy.
Several developments coalesced in the post–World War I period to bring about a
dramatic rise in its visibility. The attainment of very low temperatures allowed the
accurate calculation of absolute entropies [19], which could provide some very subtle
insights into molecular energetics [20]. Differentiation of molecular entropies into
entropies of rotation, vibration, and so on made the relevance of entropy to chemists’
principal concerns much more apparent. (For example, since the formulation of the
theory of absolute reaction rates [21] the entropy of activation has become a standard
conceptual tool for explaining reaction mechanisms.) Perhaps most significantly, a new
generation of physical chemists consciously allied with the physicalist tradition came to
prominence [22].

To contemporary chemists it must seem as if entropy has been domesticated (although


by no means rendered transparent), but some older fears still linger. We are still wary
when it comes to discussing the social dimensions of chemistry. While we’re fairly ready
to expound about the impact of chemistry on society (especially if that impact is
unquestionably beneficial), we have collectively shown relatively little interest in the
proposition that there is a two-way interchange between science and society [23]. To
acknowledge that possibility would be to call into question the “splendid isolation” from
mere human affairs that in the eyes of some gives science its exalted status. Not only do
I have deep personal reservations about that view but I believe that it turns many
students away from science. They rebel against a vision of knowledge that is completely
disconnected from the patterns of thought and feeling that inform the rest of their lives.
What we conceive of as ahuman many students understand as inhuman and react
accordingly. Yet thermodynamics itself, one of the supreme achievements of modern
science, provides ample testimony to the intercourse between the scientific and the
social [24]. It is in fact in one of the classic textbooks of thermodynamics that one can
find a wonderfully compact and incisive summary of the social and scientific vicissitudes
of the Second Law and the entropy concept.
9 / VOL. 1, NO. 4 ISSN 1430-4171
THE CHEMICAL EDUCATOR http://journals.springer-ny.com/chedr
© 1996 SPRINGER-VERLAG NEW YORK, INC. S 1430-4171 (96) 04049-6

The first law of thermodynamics, or the law of the conservation of energy, was
universally accepted almost as soon as it was stated; not because the
experimental evidence in its favor was at that time overwhelming, but rather
because it appeared reasonable, and in accord with human intuition. The
concept of the permanence of things is one which is possessed by all. It has
even been extended from the material to the spiritual world....

The second law of thermodynamics, which is known also as the law of the
dissipation or degradation of energy, or the law of increase of entropy, was
developed almost simultaneously with the First Law through the fundamental
work of Carnot, Clausius and Kelvin. But it met with a different fate, for it
seemed in no recognizable way to accord with existing thought and prejudice.
The various laws of conservation had been foreshadowed long before their
acceptance into the body of scientific thought. The Second Law came as a
new thing, alien to traditional thought, with far-reaching implications in general
cosmology.

Because the Second Law seemed alien to the intuition and even abhorrent to
the philosophy of the times, many attempts were made to find exceptions to
this law and thus to disprove its universal validity, but such attempts have
served rather to convince the incredulous and to establish the second law of
thermodynamics as one of the foundations of modern science. In this process
we have become reconciled to its philosophical implications, or have learned
to interpret them to our satisfaction....and especially have we learned its
correlation with other familiar concepts, so that now it no longer stands as a
thing apart, but rather as a natural consequence of long familiar ideas [25].

Textbooks of Physical Chemistry and Chemical Thermodynamics, 1900–1926


Texts in Which Entropy Is Not Mentioned
1. Bigelow, S. L. Theoretical and Physical Chemistry; Century: New York, 1912.

2. Jones, H. C. The Elements of Physical Chemistry; MacMillan: New York, 1902; any discussion of
entropy is also absent in the 4th edition of 1910.

3. Noyes, A. A. The General Principles of Physical Science; Henry Holt: New York, 1902.

4. Senter, G. Outlines of Physical Chemistry; Methuen: London, 1909.

Texts in Which Entropy Is Barely Mentioned


1. Arndt, K. A Summary of Physical Chemistry; translated: Patterson, W. H. Methuen: London,
1925.

2. Lewis W. C. McC. A System of Physical Chemistry; Vol. I., Kinetic Theory; Vol. II,
Thermodynamics and Statistical Mechanics; Longmans, Green: New York, 1916.
10/ V O L . 1 , N O . 4 ISSN 1430-4171
THE CHEMICAL EDUCATOR http://journals.springer-ny.com/chedr
© 1996 SPRINGER-VERLAG NEW YORK, INC. S 1430-4171 (96) 04049-6

3. Livingston, J.; Morgan, R. Elements of Physical Chemistry; John Wiley: New York, 1905.

4. Nernst, W. Theoretical Chemistry from the Standpoint of Avogadro's Rule and Thermodynamics;
translated: Tizard, H. T. MacMillan: London, 1916 [1913].

5. Reychler, E. Physikalisch-chemische Theorieen; B. Kühn, Ed.; Friederich Vieweg: Braunschweig,


1903.

6. Walker, J. Introduction to Physical Chemistry; MacMillan: London, 1899; with respect to entropy
the 8th edition, published in 1919, is essentially identical.

Texts in Which Entropy Receives a Limited Treatment


1. Eucken, A. Fundamentals of Physical Chemistry for Students of Chemistry and Related Sciences;
translated: Jette, E. R.; LaMer, V. K. McGraw-Hill: New York, 1925.

2. Perkins, H. A. An Introduction to General Thermodynamics: An Elementary Treatise on the


Fundamental Principles and Their Simpler Applications; Wiley: New York, 1912.

3. Washburn, E. W. An Introduction to the Principles of Physical Chemistry from the Standpoint of


Modern Atomistics and Thermodynamics: A Course of Instruction for Students Intending to Enter
Physics or Chemistry as a Profession; McGraw-Hill: New York, 1915.

Textbooks in Which Entropy Receives a Full Classical Treatment


1. Duhem, P. Thermodynamics and Chemistry: A Non-mathematical Treatment for Chemists and
Students of Chemistry; Wiley: New York, 1903.

2. MacDougall, H. Thermodynamics and Chemistry; Wiley: New York, 1921.

Textbooks in Which Entropy Receives a Full Classical and Statistical Treatment


1. Hinshelwood, C. N. Thermodynamics for Students of Chemistry; Dutton: New York, 1926.

2. Lewis, W. C. McC. A System of Physical Chemistry; Longmans's, Green: London, 1919; Vol. 3.

3. Lewis, G. N.; Randall, M. Thermodynamics and the Free Energy of Substances; McGraw-Hill:
New York, 1923.

4. Partington, J. R. A Text-book of Thermodynamics (With Special Reference to Chemistry);


Constable: London, 1913.

5. Partington, J. R. Chemical Thermodynamics; An Introduction to General Thermodynamics and


its Applications to Chemistry; Constable: London, 1924.

6. Perrin, J. Trait‚ de Chimie Physique. Les Principes; A. Hermann Librairie Scientifique: Paris,
1903.

7. Planck, M. Vorlesungen über Thermodynamik; 3rd ed.; Veit: Leipzig: 1911.


11/ V O L . 1 , N O . 4 ISSN 1430-4171
THE CHEMICAL EDUCATOR http://journals.springer-ny.com/chedr
© 1996 SPRINGER-VERLAG NEW YORK, INC. S 1430-4171 (96) 04049-6

8. Sackur, O. A Textbook of Thermo-chemistry and Thermodynamics, translated and revised:


Gibson, G. E. MacMillan: London, 1917 [1913].

9. A Treatise on Physical Chemistry: A Collective Effort by a Group of Physical Chemists; Taylor,


H. S., Ed.; D. van Nostrand: New York, 1925; Vol. 1, 2.

REFERENCES

1. Doyle, A. C. “The Adventure of Silver Blaze,” The Original Illustrated Sherlock Holmes; Castle
Books: Secaucus, NJ, 1987; pp 185–200.

2. Examples abound; see, inter alia, (a) Fine, L. W.; Beall, H. Chemistry for Scientists and
Engineers; Saunders: Philadelphia, 1990; pp 378–390; (b) Gillespie, R. J.; Eaton, D. R.;
Humphreys, D. A. Robinson, E. A. Atoms, Molecules and Reactions: An Introduction to
Chemistry; Prentice Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1994; pp 321–330.

3. Craig, N. C. Entropy Analysis: An Introduction to Chemical Thermodynamics; VCH: New York,


1992.

4. Pauling, L. General Chemistry: An Introduction to Descriptive Chemistry and Modern Chemical


Theory, 2nd ed.; W. H. Freeman: San Francisco, 1953; pp 650–653; Pauling’s book was one of
the first to discuss the significance of entropy at the introductory university level. In the first
edition (1948) only the entropy of vaporization is mentioned and no physical meaning is attached
to the term.

5. (a) Dorin, H.; Demmin, P. E.; Gable, D. L. Chemistry: The Structure of Matter; Prentice Hall:
Needham, MA, 1992, pp 492-496; (b) LeMay., H. E., Jr.; Beall, H. Robble, K. M.; Brower, D. C.
Chemistry: Connections to Our Changing World Prentice Hall: Needham, MA, 1996, pp 756-760.

6. Servos, J. W. Physical Chemistry from Ostwald to Pauling: The Making of a Science in America;
Princeton University: Princeton, 1990.

7. Kragh, H. “Entropy as a Working Tool in Early Theoretical and Physical Chemistry” Dibner
Institute, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, April 15, 1996.

8. Kragh, H.; Weininger, S. J. “Sooner Silence Than Confusion: The Tortuous Entry of Entropy into
Chemistry” Historical Studies in the Physical and Biological Sciences 1996, 27, 1.

9. Relevant historical references can be found in Kragh and Weininger, reference 8.

10. Nernst, W. H. Theoretical Chemistry from the Standpoint of Avogadro’s Rule and
Thermodynamics; revised and translated: Tizard, H. T. MacMillan: London, 1916; p 22.

11. Planck, M. Treatise on Thermodynamics; translated: Ogg, A. 3rd ed.; Dover: New York, 1965
(1926); pp 272–292.
12/ V O L . 1 , N O . 4 ISSN 1430-4171
THE CHEMICAL EDUCATOR http://journals.springer-ny.com/chedr
© 1996 SPRINGER-VERLAG NEW YORK, INC. S 1430-4171 (96) 04049-6

12. Cropper, W. H. “Walther Nernst and the Last Law,” J. Chem. Ed. 1987, 64, 3.

13. Hall, M. B. “The Inductive Sciences in Nineteenth-Century England,” In Nature, Experiment and
the Sciences: Essays on Galileo and the History of Science in Honour of Stillman Drake; Levere,
T. H.; Shea, W. R., Eds.; Kluwer: Dordrecht, 1990; pp 225–247; discusses the late arrival of
statistical thinking in chemistry, p. 241.

14. Perrin, J. B. Traité de Chimie Physique. Les Principes; Gauthier-Villars: Paris, 1903; Chapter V.

15. Partington, J. R. A Text-Book of Thermodynamics (With Special Reference to Chemistry);


Constable: London, 1913; pp 53, 70.

16. Denbigh, K. G.; Denbigh, J. S. Entropy in Relation to Incomplete Knowledge; Cambridge


University: Cambridge, 1985; p 3.

17. Meyers, G. “Nineteenth-Century Popularizations of Thermodynamics and the Rhetoric of Social


Prophecy” In Energy and Entropy: Science and Culture in Victorian Britain; Brantlinger, P., Ed.;
Indiana University: Bloomington, 1989; pp 307–338.

18. (a) Meyerson, E. Identity and Reality; translated: Loewenberg, K.; George Allen and Unwin:
London, 1930; pp 259–290; (b) Hiebert, E. N. “The Uses and Abuses of Thermodynamics in
Religion” Dædalus 1966, 95, 1046.

19. Giauque, W. F. Low Temperature, Chemical, and Magneto Thermodynamics: The Scientific
Papers of William F. Giauque; Dover: New York, 1969; Vol. I.

20. Kemp, J. D.; Pitzer, K. S. “The Entropy of Ethane and the Third Law of Thermodynamics:
Hindered Rotation of Methyl Groups” J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1937, 59, 276.

21. Glasstone, S.; Laidler, K. J.; Eyring, H. The Theory of Rate Processes: The Kinetics of Chemical
Reactions, Viscosity, Diffusion and Electrochemical Phenomena; McGraw-Hill: New York, 1941.

22. A Treatise on Physical Chemistry: A Collective Effort by a Group of Physical Chemists; Taylor,
H. S., Ed.; D. van Nostrand: New York, 1925; 2 vols.; Taylor’s “Preface” in Vol. 1 reads like a
manifesto.
23. There are some inspiring exceptions: (a) Levi, P. The Periodic Table; translated: Rosenthal, R.
Schocken: New York, 1984; (b) Hoffmann, R. The Same and not the Same; Columbia University:
New York, 1995.

24. (a) The Relations of Literature and Science; Schatzberg, W.; Waite, R. A.; Johnson, J. K.; Eds.;
Modern Language Association: New York, 1987; Seeger, R. J. “On Humanistic Aspects of
Entropy” Physis 1967, 9, 215; and references 16–18.

25. Lewis; G. N.; Randall, M. Thermodynamics and the Free Energy of Chemical Substances;
McGraw-Hill: New York, 1923; pp 109–110.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy