Abstract
In a previous paper (Found. Phys. 29, 655 (1999)), we have presented a review of various approaches in the literature towards the derivation of so-called thermodynamic uncertainty relations in statistical thermodynamics. This review has been critical. We have argued that some of these approaches are sound, i.e., they reach a valid conclusion, albeit under restricted conditions, whereas others were found to be incoherent and could not withstand the scrutiny of logical analysis. In the latter category we have included work of Lavenda on this topic. However, in a comment (Found. Phys. Lett. 13, 487 (2000)), Lavenda claims to have uncovered “fundamental errors” in our paper. In this reply we show that these claims are mistaken.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
REFERENCES
B. H. Lavenda, Found. Phys. Lett. 13, 487 (2000).
J. Uffink and J. van Lith, Found. Phys. 29, 655 (1999).
B. H. Lavenda, Statistical Physics: A Probabilistic Approach (Wiley, New York, 1991).
B. H. Lavenda, J. Phys. Chem. Sol. 49, 685 (1988).
J. Uffink “Bluff your way in the second law of thermodynamics,” Stud. Hist. Phil. Mod. Phys. (to appear).
B. Mandelbrot, IRE Trans. Inform. Theory IT-2, 190 (1956).
F. Schlögl, J. Phys. Chem. Sol. 49, 679 (1988).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Uffink, J., van Lith, J. Thermodynamic Uncertainty Relations Again: A Reply to Lavenda. Found Phys Lett 14, 187–193 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1012385722039
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1012385722039