[Bored chemist]

I see that, for example, you still  think that quoting chatGPT is somehow useful.

By asking them the same question at different times, we can see how they learn. Or how mainstream science shift its paradigm over time.

That's nothing to do with the topic, is it?
Thermodynamics hasn't changed much in 50 years.
The definition of temperature is essentially even older.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

That's nothing to do with the topic, is it?

It is. AI models will be the first reference for most people to get their information when they need it. Some of them might care enough to cross check the answers with other sources. But most of them won't, especially when the stake is not considered too high.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Thermodynamics hasn't changed much in 50 years.
The definition of temperature is essentially even older.

The term temperature is also used in fields other than thermodynamics, such as statistical mechanics, telecommunications, photography, and information science. It will be important to know their differences and similarities.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

How the heck Probability Crept into Physics?

The interpretation of probability is a disputed topic in philosophy. But shouldn't physics, as an objective study of nature, be devoid of terms like probability at the fundamental level? Surprisingly, this is not the case. Probability plays a fundamental role even at the level of classical physics. In this video, we explore how Maxwell and Boltzmann brought probability to explain thermodynamic concepts such as entropy, pressure, and temperature. Since then, physics hasn't been the same.

Timestamps:

0:00 - 0:27 Intro
0:28 - 1:07 Paradox of perfume
1:08 - 1:57 Clausius's mean free path approach
1:58 - 3:33 Maxwell's velocity probability distribution
3:44 - 5:08 Weird prediction of the theory
5:09 - 5:38 Influence on Boltzmann
5:39 - 6:09 Prof. Sean Carroll explains the arrow of time
6:10 - 6:45 Boltzmann's H theorem of entropy
6:46 - 8:50 Prof. Cedric Villani explains the formula
8:51 - 9:35 Loschmidt's paradox
9:36 - 10:02 Conclusion

Some interesting comments.

Planck's approach to Blackbody Radiation was to analyze the entropy as a function of energy.  To make both high-frequency and low-frequency data consistent with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, he included an additional "guess" term proportional to the frequency (hf);  this results in Planck's Law which is strictly Classical.  Planck's subsequent application of Boltzmann's Statistical Mechanics to justify his guess then led to his revolutionary conclusion that the material of the walls emit and absorb radiation in discrete quanta.  A paper titled "Planck?s Route to the Black Body Radiation Formula and Quantization" by Michael Fowler (7/25/2008) gives a nice discussion.  "Theoretical Concepts in Physics: An Alternative View of Theoretical Reasoning in Physics" (1984) by Malcolm S. Longair contains more details.

[alancalverd]

Surprisingly, this is not the case.

Nothing surprising about it at all. I suspect this video was made by a philosopher. Particularly as the rest of the synopsis is garbage.

[Bored chemist]

. AI models will be the first reference for most people to get their information when they need it.

Maybe they will; but not yet.

Several people here have told you it's not a source of information.
You are the only one using it, and we keep pointing out that such behaviour is foolhardy.

[Bored chemist]

Thermodynamics hasn't changed much in 50 years.
The definition of temperature is essentially even older.

The term temperature is also used in fields other than thermodynamics, such as statistical mechanics, telecommunications, photography, and information science. It will be important to know their differences and similarities.

If they are not all talking about the same thing, then some of them are wrong.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Surprisingly, this is not the case.

Nothing surprising about it at all. I suspect this video was made by a philosopher. Particularly as the rest of the synopsis is garbage.

Earlier scientists did get surprised, or even straight out rejected the idea.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

. AI models will be the first reference for most people to get their information when they need it.

Maybe they will; but not yet.

Several people here have told you it's not a source of information.
You are the only one using it, and we keep pointing out that such behaviour is foolhardy.

They are sources of information. They can be asked to show their references.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

If they are not all talking about the same thing, then some of them are wrong.

When they are different about something, how to determine the correct one?

[alancalverd]

As the term is borrowed from thermodynamics, it should be used in inverted commas and specifically redefined for any other use.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

As the term is borrowed from thermodynamics, it should be used in inverted commas and specifically redefined for any other use.

The term temperature was already widely used before thermodynamics.

[Bored chemist]

. AI models will be the first reference for most people to get their information when they need it.

Maybe they will; but not yet.

Several people here have told you it's not a source of information.
You are the only one using it, and we keep pointing out that such behaviour is foolhardy.

They are sources of information. They can be asked to show their references.

Aside from the fact that you just proves that they are not sources of information (The references are the sources), why don't you ask then?
And then you can quote those sources and we can judge them.

[paul cotter]

Agreed.I don't know one single person, other that our esteemed colleague Hamdani, that uses these unreliable services for information.

[alancalverd]

The term temperature was already widely used before thermodynamics.

I very much doubt is its use in telecommunications derives directly from the physiological phenomenon or the etymology of the word, but has a lot more to do with statistics and entropy.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Aside from the fact that you just proves that they are not sources of information (The references are the sources), why don't you ask then?
And then you can quote those sources and we can judge them.

A secondary source is a source.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

The term temperature was already widely used before thermodynamics.

I very much doubt is its use in telecommunications derives directly from the physiological phenomenon or the etymology of the word, but has a lot more to do with statistics and entropy.

It's used for the similar behaviors of radiation from objects with the same temperature.

In summary, antenna temperature is a key concept in understanding the amount of radiation an antenna receives, which can represent either signal or noise, depending on the application. It helps quantify the effective power of this radiation by linking it to the temperature concept, facilitating better analysis and system design in both astronomy and communications.

[Bored chemist]

Aside from the fact that you just proves that they are not sources of information (The references are the sources), why don't you ask then?
And then you can quote those sources and we can judge them.

A secondary source is a source.

A thing that makes up nonsense is not a source.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Aside from the fact that you just proves that they are not sources of information (The references are the sources), why don't you ask then?
And then you can quote those sources and we can judge them.

A secondary source is a source.

A thing that makes up nonsense is not a source.

Humans make up nonsense everyday. What matters is whether or not the statements accurately represent objective reality.

[alancalverd]

By definition, nonsense does not represent reality.