RECORD
The Source of Irreversibility in Macroscopic Dynamics
chao-dyn · Submitted 31 Mar 1995
abstract compiled · 2026-09-23 · no language-model review
The authors' main claim Strictly isolated non-equilibrium systems do not relax towards a new thermodynamic equilibrium.
The compiled record
The paper's own sentences, arranged. Each label is drawn from a closed vocabulary; the number beside it is the probability the classifier gave that label. Numbers in the tables are the authors', checked by code. No sentence in this record was written by a model.
Open the compiled record
The abstract, sentence by sentence
The dynamics of irreversible relaxation of non-equilibrium macroscopic systems is discussed. Arguments are developed showing that the general process is supported by two independent successive mechanisms. One is mixing and it follows pure conservative dynamics. It does not lead to thermodynamic equilibrium. The second step involves dissipation to the outside world of the information contained in the initial constraints. This step implies interactions with the surroundings. Strict isolation is excluded. The first step is only apparently irreversible. Strict irreversibility concerns only the second one. The first step is isentropic. Entropy change implies the second step. Strictly isolated non-equilibrium systems do not relax towards a new thermodynamic equilibrium.
background contribution method result interpretation main claim
| # | sentence | role | the authors' own work | states the main conclusion | strength |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| s0 | The dynamics of irreversible relaxation of non-equilibrium macroscopic systems is discussed. | background 0.80 | 0.31 | 0.05 | unclear 0.60 |
| s1 | Arguments are developed showing that the general process is supported by two independent successive mechanisms. | contribution 0.78 | 0.82 | 0.15 | asserted 1.00 |
| s2 | One is mixing and it follows pure conservative dynamics. | result 0.58 | 0.40 | 0.06 | asserted 1.00 |
| s3 | It does not lead to thermodynamic equilibrium. | result 0.81 | 0.53 | 0.09 | asserted 1.00 |
| s4 | The second step involves dissipation to the outside world of the information contained in the initial constraints. | result 0.43 | 0.49 | 0.21 | asserted 1.00 |
| s5 | This step implies interactions with the surroundings. | interpretation 0.77 | 0.25 | 0.06 | asserted 1.00 |
| s6 | Strict isolation is excluded. | result 0.53 | 0.27 | 0.10 | asserted 1.00 |
| s7 | The first step is only apparently irreversible. | interpretation 0.62 | 0.58 | 0.15 | asserted 1.00 |
| s8 | Strict irreversibility concerns only the second one. | interpretation 0.67 | 0.61 | 0.38 | asserted 1.00 |
| s9 | The first step is isentropic. | result 0.57 | 0.57 | 0.12 | asserted 1.00 |
| s10 | Entropy change implies the second step. | interpretation 0.75 | 0.49 | 0.26 | asserted 1.00 |
| s11 | Strictly isolated non-equilibrium systems do not relax towards a new thermodynamic equilibrium. | result 0.84 | 0.52 | 0.53 | asserted 1.00 |
What was examined, and what was not
- arXiv listing abstract v1
- full text
- figures and tables
- references and citing sentences
- relations to other papers
- P abstract
- S sections
- T body sentences
- C citations
- R cross-paper relations
The paper
Original abstract
The dynamics of irreversible relaxation of non-equilibrium macroscopic systems is discussed. Arguments are developed showing that the general process is supported by two independent successive mechanisms. One is mixing and it follows pure conservative dynamics. It does not lead to thermodynamic equilibrium. The second step involves dissipation to the outside world of the information contained in the initial constraints. This step implies interactions with the surroundings. Strict isolation is excluded. The first step is only apparently irreversible. Strict irreversibility concerns only the second one. The first step is isentropic. Entropy change implies the second step. Strictly isolated non-equilibrium systems do not relax towards a new thermodynamic equilibrium.
Human review
Discussion
Know something about this paper? Leave a comment, or highlight any passage above to comment on it.