Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 60 references

Does classical thermodynamics need a third law? Securing the second law at absolute zero

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Classical thermodynamics can dispense with the third law: the Nernst heat theorem follows from the second law once Planck's statement is assumed continuous at absolute zero.

desk verdict The historical essay is solid and the paper is transparent about its own assumptions, but the central derivation is circular—Eq. (9) already contains the Nernst theorem—so the claimed redundancy of the Third Law is not established. read the letter →

arxiv 2602.03244 v3 pith:624LRNWQ submitted 2026-02-03 physics.hist-ph physics.chem-phphysics.class-ph

José-María Martín-Olalla This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.hist-phphysics.chem-phphysics.class-ph PACS 05.70.-a
keywords NernstheattheoremthirdlawsecondPlanck'sstatementabsolutezeroCarnotengineresidualentropythermodynamicconsistency
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to establish that the third law of thermodynamics is logically redundant: the Nernst heat theorem — the vanishing of isothermal entropy change as temperature approaches absolute zero — follows from the second law alone. The load-bearing move is to treat Planck's statement of the second law as continuous at the boundary T=0, so that a reversible Carnot engine approaching absolute zero must see its rejected heat and its work vanish together. If that is granted, the paper's derivation chain forces ΔS→0, making the Nernst theorem a consistency condition rather than an independent discovery. A sympathetic reader would care because this dissolves a century-old dispute over whether absolute zero needs separate legislation, and it makes the unattainability of absolute zero a direct consequence of the second law. The paper also argues that the historical objection based on the practical impossibility of performing a Carnot engine at T=0 misses the point, since the proof requires only a limit.

What carries the argument

The working machinery is Planck's statement of the second law — no periodic engine can have as its sole effect the cooling of a reservoir and the raising of a weight — extended by continuity to the boundary T=0. The formal identity is W=(Tb−Tc)ΔS for a reversible Carnot engine, with temperature defined by Tc/Tb=−Qc/Qb, so that if Qc→0−, the work W must also vanish. The derivation chain Tc→0+ ⇒ Qc→0− ⇒ W→0+ ⇒ ΔS→0+ carries the argument. The paper contrasts this with the equation of state S(T,x)=cT+b(x), whose finite b-difference would make T=0 a regular point with residual entropy and thereby violate the continuity of Planck's statement.

What would settle it

Find a real substance whose entropy change for some change of a mechanical parameter tends to a nonzero constant as T→0 while its specific heat vanishes, and show a reversible engine whose cold reservoir approaches absolute zero can still lift a weight with rejected heat tending to zero; such a substance would break the chain Tc→0+ ⇒ Qc→0− ⇒ W→0+ ⇒ ΔS→0+.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim: the Nernst heat theorem — isothermal entropy change ΔS tending to zero as absolute zero is approached — is not an independent discovery but a logical consequence of the second law. The derivation is a chain of material implications: as the cold-reservoir temperature Tc→0+, the heat Qc rejected by a reversible Carnot engine goes to 0−; by the continuity of Planck's statement of the second law, the work W then goes to 0+; and from W=(Tb−Tc)ΔS, the entropy swing ΔS goes to 0+. The historical objection that a T=0 Carnot engine cannot be physically performed is bypassed because the argument needs only the limit. The paper concludes that the third law is a 'consistency r

Load-bearing premise

The derivation assumes that Planck's statement of the second law remains valid as a limit at absolute zero, so that a reversible engine rejecting vanishing heat must also produce vanishing work; if that boundary continuity fails, a substance with finite entropy difference at T=0 could exist without violating the second law at any positive temperature.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The Nernst heat theorem becomes a theorem of the second law, so an independent third-law postulate is an unnecessary complexity.
  • Absolute zero remains unattainable by any finite sequence of adiabatic and isothermal operations, but as a consequence of the second law's continuity, not of a separate postulate.
  • The classical objection that a T=0 Carnot engine cannot be physically performed does not block the proof, because the argument requires only a limit as Qc→0−, not an actual engine at T=0.
  • A substance with residual entropy at absolute zero would violate the continuity of Planck's statement and is therefore thermodynamically inconsistent; the paper predicts none exists.
  • The vanishing of specific heats at T=0 is tied to the same framework through thermal stability, reinforcing that observed low-temperature behavior is not an independent law.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Beyond the paper: accepting the continuity premise would force statistical models with residual entropy at absolute zero to either remove that entropy in the thermodynamic limit or abandon the macroscopic equilibrium description; the paper itself does not enter the microscopic debate.
  • Beyond the paper: the same limit-continuity argument may apply to other boundaries of thermodynamic state space, such as the ideal-gas limit or infinite dilution, where a law valid on an open set may determine boundary behavior; the paper treats only T→0.
  • Beyond the paper: if the derivation stands, the third law's presentation in textbooks and lecture courses could shift from an independent postulate to a corollary of the second law, making the unattainability of absolute zero a derived result rather than a separate axiom.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper argues that Planck's statement of the Second Law, when extended by a continuity assumption to the boundary T→0, implies the Nernst heat theorem. On this basis it claims that the Third Law is not an independent postulate but a redundancy: the Second Law already precludes any Carnot engine at absolute zero, so the Nernst theorem is a 'consistency regulator' rather than a separate physical discovery. Sections 2–3 provide a historical review of the Nernst–Einstein debate and attempt a formal derivation in §3.1, with supporting discussions in §3.2–§3.5.

Significance. If the central claim were correct, it would resolve a long-standing foundational debate and significantly simplify the axiomatic structure of thermodynamics. The paper is clearly written, historically informed, and usefully contrasts the Nernstian and Einsteinian positions in Table 1 and Figure 1. It also constructs an explicit toy model in §3.5 that sharpens the question. However, the central derivation is circular: the continuity postulate in Eq. (9) is logically equivalent to the Nernst theorem it purports to prove. The paper's own counterexample in §3.5 and its concession in §3.4 further undermine the claimed redundancy. The historical and pedagogical value does not compensate for the unsoundness of the formal argument.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.1, Eqs. (9)–(10)] The step labeled Eq. (9), P ⇒ (W→0+ ⇐ Qc→0−), is not a consequence of Planck's statement; it is a new continuity axiom. From the paper's own Eqs. (5)–(7), Qc = −Tc ΔS and W = (Tb − Tc)ΔS. As Tc→0, Qc→0 automatically, but W = Tb ΔS + Qc tends to Tb ΔS, which need not vanish. Equation (10) therefore asserts W→0, which is equivalent to ΔS→0 — precisely the Nernst theorem. The appeal to 'continuous and well-behaved' properties is an additional postulate, as Landsberg's quote in §3 already states for boundary points. This is the load-bearing step of the paper, and it assumes the conclusion.
  2. [§3.5, Eq. (12)] The model S(T,x)=cT+b(x) is a concrete counterexample to the paper's central claim. It satisfies the Kelvin–Planck statement for every Tc>0, since a Carnot cycle has positive heat rejection Qc=−Tc ΔS for any finite Tc. Yet as Tc→0, Qc→0 while W→Tb ΔS with ΔS=b(x2)−b(x1) finite, so the limit of a reversible engine produces finite work with vanishing heat rejection. This is exactly the behavior the paper claims the Second Law precludes. The model is only ruled out if one imposes Eq. (9) as an additional postulate, confirming that the Third Law is not derived from the Second Law but added as a separate assumption.
  3. [§3.4, 'proven by definition'] The text states: 'if the S in Nernst's theorem is understood strictly as Clausius' entropy, then the theorem is proven by definition.' This concession is fatal to the paper's thesis. If the theorem follows by definition from the choice of Carnot temperature and Clausius entropy, then it is not a physical consequence of the Second Law; it is a convention about how to extend these quantities to T=0. The paper's later claim that the Third Law is 'an unnecessary complexity' is thereby reduced to a terminological preference, not a logical derivation. The same issue applies to the claim that the boundary is defined by Qc=0 in §3.4.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Figure 1 caption] Typo: 'whicl' should be 'which'.
  2. [§2] Typo: 'quantuum' should be 'quantum'.
  3. [§3.1, Eq. (11)] The existence and value of lim_{T→0+} Q/T is asserted without proof. If the limit is taken as a new requirement, it is another independent postulate; if derived, the derivation is not shown. This should be clarified.
  4. [General] The 'Timeline' and LLM-use disclosure at the end are unusual for a physics journal and may be better placed in an acknowledgment footnote or removed.

Circularity Check

5 steps flagged · score 8.0 of 10

Eq. (9) assumes Nernst's theorem: the limit step Qc→0 ⇒ W→0 is valid only if ΔS→0, the very conclusion; §3.4 and ref. [42] make the theorem definitional/self-citational.

  1. self definitional [§3.1, Eq. (9) with Eqs. (5)–(7)]
    "P =⇒ (W → 0+ ⇐ Qc → 0−), (9) because reversible exchanges are linked to the thermophysical properties of the working fluid and the reservoirs, see (5) and (7). In a consistent physical theory, these properties must be continuous and well-behaved as the boundary of the state space is approached; consequently the behaviour of Qc must be governed by the same continuity."

    From the paper’s own Eq. (7), W = (Tb − Tc)ΔS and Qc = −TcΔS. As Tc → 0+, Qc → 0− even when ΔS is finite, while W → TbΔS. The asserted implication Qc → 0− ⇒ W → 0+ is therefore equivalent to ΔS → 0, which is precisely the Nernst heat theorem the paper claims to prove. The ‘continuity and well-behaved’ at the boundary is a new boundary postulate, not a consequence of Planck’s statement — as the paper itself quotes from Landsberg: “both views represent an additional postulate.”

  2. self definitional [§3.1, Eq. (10)]
    "Relation (9) is the Nernst’s theorem illustrated in Figure 1A with Qc linked to Tc as per (5) and W linked to ∆ S, as per (7). Nernst’s theorem is proven with the following chain of material implications: Tc → 0+ ⇒ Qc → 0− ⇒ W → 0+ ⇒ ∆S → 0+."

    The middle implication repeats the assumed Eq. (9), which already contains ΔS → 0 as its content: W → 0+ only if ΔS → 0 when Tc → 0. The chain therefore does not derive Nernst’s theorem; it restates the theorem as the pivotal premise. The first implication uses Qc = −QbTc/Tb, but the step from vanishing Qc to vanishing W is the very theorem to be shown.

3 more flagged steps
  1. self definitional [§3.4, Eq. (11) and following]
    "As T decreases, Q must also decrease such that their ratio remains finite, representing the isothermal entropy variation driven by a reversible heat exchange. ... this ratio can only be zero; any non-zero value would lead to a negation of Planck’s statement. ... In short, if the S in Nernst’s theorem is understood strictly as Clausius’ entropy, then the theorem is proven by definition."

    The limit in Eq. (11) is required to exist in R, but finiteness alone allows any constant ΔS = Q/T; a non-zero value is not a contradiction of Planck’s statement. The assertion that the limit ‘can only be zero’ is imposed, not derived. The paper then explicitly concedes that Nernst’s theorem is true by definition when S is Clausius entropy (and later, when T is Carnot temperature), which is an admission that the ‘proof’ is definitional rather than a deduction from the Second Law.

  2. uniqueness imported from authors [§3.4, ref. [42]]
    "T = 0 is uniquely defined by a reversible Carnot engine where Qc = 0.[42] This assignment is universal and leads directly to the Nernst heat theorem as demonstrated in (10)."

    Reference [42] is the same author’s prior paper ‘Proof of the Nernst theorem’. The uniqueness of T = 0 via Qc = 0 is not derived in this manuscript; it is imported from that self-citation as if it were an external fact. But that cited result already presupposes the limit behavior being proved here, so the self-citation carries the central logical load rather than providing independent support.

  3. self definitional [§3.3]
    "following the logic of Carath´eodory [6], we may conclude that simple systems must, by definition, obey the Nernst theorem."

    Here the Nernst theorem is made true by defining ‘simple system’ to include it. Rather than deriving the theorem from Planck’s statement, this step redefines the class of systems so that the theorem is automatically satisfied, and then presents that redefinition as a conclusion. The empirical observation that real substances obey Nernst’s theorem then becomes evidence for the definition, not for the claimed derivational priority of the Second Law.

full rationale

The paper’s central claim is that the Nernst heat theorem follows from Planck’s statement of the Second Law, so the Third Law is redundant. The pivotal move is Eq. (9), the ‘limit’ version of Planck’s statement: P ⇒ (W → 0+ ⇐ Qc → 0−). This is not a consequence of Planck’s statement; using the paper’s own Eqs. (5)–(7), Qc → 0− only implies W → TbΔS, and the additional inference W → 0+ is exactly ΔS → 0, the Nernst theorem. Calling the required boundary behavior ‘continuity and well-behaved’ is a new postulate, as Landsberg’s quoted remark in §3 acknowledges. The derivation chain in Eq. (10) therefore restates the theorem as its middle premise. Section 3.4 is even more explicit: the theorem is said to be ‘proven by definition’ when S is Clausius entropy or T is Carnot temperature, and Eq. (11) is resolved by decreeing that the limit Q/T ‘can only be zero’. Section 3.3 likewise makes the theorem true by defining simple systems to obey it. The paper also imports the crucial uniqueness of T = 0 at Qc = 0 from the same author’s prior ‘Proof of the Nernst theorem’ [42], using a self-citation as the authority for the very result under discussion. A concrete countermodel is even provided within the paper: Eq. (12), S(T,x)=cT+b(x), satisfies Planck’s statement for every T>0 but violates the claimed limit, since Carnot cycles have Qc→0 while W→TbΔS≠0; the paper dismisses this model on consistency grounds but does not derive that dismissal from Planck’s statement. Thus the claimed logical redundancy of the Third Law reduces to an assumed boundary axiom that has the content of Nernst’s theorem. Score 8: the result is forced by definition and by the self-citation chain rather than by an independent derivation.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No numerical parameters are fitted; the paper is conceptual. The load-bearing assumptions are the boundary continuity of Planck's statement and the finiteness/zero of Q/T at T=0, both of which amount to the Nernst theorem. The argument also imports the vanishing of specific heats from the author's own ref [34].

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Planck's statement of the Second Law is universal and applies as an evolution criterion at T=0.
    Invoked in §3.2 and throughout; the paper assumes the Second Law holds at the boundary, which is exactly the point Einstein disputed and Landsberg (§3) calls an additional postulate.
  • ad hoc to paper Continuity of reversible Carnot engines at the boundary: Qc→0− implies W→0+ (Eq. 9).
    Introduced in §3.1 as what 'a consistent physical theory requires'; it is not derived, and via Eq. (7) it is equivalent to ΔS→0.
  • ad hoc to paper The limit lim_{T→0+} Q/T exists and equals zero (Eq. 11).
    §3.4 asserts a nonzero limit would negate Planck's statement; this is the Nernst theorem itself, not a consequence, since Q=0 with nonzero S is possible (residual entropy).
  • domain assumption Carathéodory's simple-system definition extends to T=0, so quasi-static adiabatic processes are reversible at all temperatures and simple systems obey Nernst.
    §3.3 uses this to conclude observed substances are simple systems down to T=0; this is a modeling postulate.
  • domain assumption Energy conservation excludes Qb→∞ as Tc→0.
    Used in Eq. (10) to justify the first implication; standard First Law input, but the finiteness of ΔS is what is at issue.
  • domain assumption Stability cy>0 implies vanishing specific heats at T=0 (from ref [34]).
    Figure 2 imports this from the author's own prior paper; no derivation appears here.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Does classical thermodynamics need a third law? Securing the second law at absolute zero." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/624LRNWQ

@misc{pith2026260203244,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Does classical thermodynamics need a third law? Securing the second law at absolute zero},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/624LRNWQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2602.03244}
}
read the original abstract

This paper elaborates on the implications of the relationship between the Second and Third Laws and provides a comprehensive formal and historical justification for the logical redundancy of the Nernst heat theorem. By revisiting the Nernst-Einstein debate, the underlying hypotheses that lead to the traditional view of the Third Law as an independent postulate are examined. It is argued that the historical rejection of Nernst's proof -- motivated by Einstein's insistence on the practical non-performability of cycles at absolute zero -- overlooks the fact that a universal Second Law already precludes such cycles, rendering an independent Third Law an unnecessary complexity. Ultimately, the Nernst theorem is shown to be an essential consistency regulator rather than an independent physical discovery.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.03244 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Comparison between observed (A, left) and hypothetical (B, right) thermodynamic behaviors as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Axiomatic map of the macroscopic framework. The diagram illustrates how Planck’s statement of the Second Law [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages

  1. [22]

    Comment on ’an equivalent theorem of the nernst theorem’,

    I. Oppenheim, “Comment on ’an equivalent theorem of the nernst theorem’,” Journal of Physics A: Mathemati- cal and General 22, 143 (1989)

    1989

  2. [42]

    Thermal stability originates the vanishing of the specific heats at absolute zero,

    Jos´ e-Mar ´ ıa Mart ´ ın-Olalla, “Thermal stability originates the vanishing of the specific heats at absolute zero,” Physica Scripta 100, 125206 (2025)

    2025

  3. [1]

    four laws that drive the universe

    INTRODUCTION Thermodynamics is a branch of physics deeply rooted in undisputed empirical evidence. However, there re- mains a diverse range of perspectives on how this ev- idence should be formalized. Classical presentations of thermodynamics—often framing the field around the “four laws that drive the universe”[1]—were pioneered by Clausius [2] and Thoms...

    arXiv 2026

  4. [2]

    Why is a third law of thermodynamics needed? 2

  5. [3]

    The continuity of Planck’s statement of the Second Law at the boundary 4 3.2

    Why is a third law of thermodynamics NOT needed? 4 3.1. The continuity of Planck’s statement of the Second Law at the boundary 4 3.2. The ontological consistency of the Second Law 5 3.3. Ideal adiabatic processes 6 3.4. Ideal isotherms at T = 0 6 3.5. Equations of state and the boundary of accessible states 7

  6. [4]

    Conclusion 7 References 8 Timeline 10 This version is also published in Zenodo doi:10.5281/zenodo.18454229. Total word count: 5145 Keywords: Nernst heat theorem; Einstein-Nernst debate; Theoretical parsimony; Second Law; Universality of the Second Law; Planck’s statement; Axiomatic Thermodynamics; Consistency; specific heat; entropy; Clausius entropy; tem...

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.18454229

  7. [5]

    it is impossible to build up an engine that operates peri- odically and whose sole effects are the cooling of a reser- voir and the raising of a weight

    WHY IS A THIRD LA W OF THERMODYNAMICS NEEDED? Figure 1 illustrates the foundations of the classical de- bate regarding the interplay between the Second and Third Laws of thermodynamics. Panel A displays the phase space of a substance adhering to both the van- ishing of specific heat and the Nernst theorem: all iso- x lines converge to a unique, finite ent...

  8. [6]

    point of logic

    WHY IS A THIRD LA W OF THERMODYNAMICS NOT NEEDED? Landsberg [7] contends that the crux of the contro- versy lies in the status of boundary points (equilibrium states at T = 0) relative to an open set of points (regular equilibrium states at non-zero temperature). He notes: “In mathematics the status of such points is often the subject of a separate assump...

Show all 60 references
  1. [7]

    a theory is the more impressive the greater the simplicity of its premises, the more differ- ent kinds of things it relates, and the more extended its area of applicability

    CONCLUSION Planck’s statement arose from observations at non-zero temperature, yet the statement is valid irrespective of temperature, as wisely noted by Planck [5, Chapter II, §116].‡ While that remark was not explicitly intended ‡ “The temperature of the reservoirs does not ...

  2. [8]

    P. W.. Atkins, Four laws that drive the universe (Oxford University Press, 2007) p. 130

    2007

  3. [9]

    Ueber eine ver¨ anderte form des zweiten hauptsatzes der mechanischen w¨ armetheorie,

    Rudolf Clausius, “Ueber eine ver¨ anderte form des zweiten hauptsatzes der mechanischen w¨ armetheorie,” Annalen der Physik 169, 481–506 (1854)

  4. [10]

    On the dynamical theory of heat, with numerical results deduced from mr joule’s equiva- lent of a thermal unit and m. regnault’s observations on steam,

    William Thomson, “On the dynamical theory of heat, with numerical results deduced from mr joule’s equiva- lent of a thermal unit and m. regnault’s observations on steam,” Trans. Roy. Soc. Edinb. 20, 261 (1853)

  5. [11]

    Henri Poincar´ e, Thermodynamique (Gauthier-Villars Rep Forgotten Books (2018), 1892)

    2018

  6. [12]

    Max Planck, Vorlesungen ¨ uber Thermodynamik (Veit und Comp., 1897)

  7. [13]

    Untersuchungen ¨ uber die grundlagen der thermodynamik,

    Constantin Carath´ eodory, “Untersuchungen ¨ uber die grundlagen der thermodynamik,” Mathematischen An- nalen 67, 355 (1909)

    1909

  8. [14]

    Foundations of thermodynamics,

    P. T. Landsberg, “Foundations of thermodynamics,” Re- views of Modern Physics 28, 363 (1956)

    1956

  9. [15]

    Keenan, Princi- ples of General Thermodynamics (John Wiley and Sons, 1965)

    George N Hatsopoulos and Joseph H. Keenan, Princi- ples of General Thermodynamics (John Wiley and Sons, 1965)

    1965

  10. [16]

    Callen, Thermodynamics and an Introduc- tion to Thermostatistics , 2nd ed

    Herbert B. Callen, Thermodynamics and an Introduc- tion to Thermostatistics , 2nd ed. (John Wiley and Sons, 1985)

    1985

  11. [17]

    Elias Panayotis Gyftopoulos and Gian Paolo Beretta, Thermodynamics: foundations and applications (Dover, 2005)

    2005

  12. [18]

    possible with a reservoir at 1000 celsius, it is also possible with a reservoir at 0 celsius.”

    Arthur Stanley Eddington, The Nature of the Physical World (Kessinger Publishing, LLC (2010), 1915). possible with a reservoir at 1000 celsius, it is also possible with a reservoir at 0 celsius.”

    2010

  13. [19]

    Third law of thermodynamics,

    Gottfried Falk, “Third law of thermodynamics,” Physical Review 115, 249–253 (1959)

    1959

  14. [20]

    An equivalent theorem of the nernst theorem,

    Zijun Yan and Jincan Chen, “An equivalent theorem of the nernst theorem,” Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General 21, 707–709 (1988)

    1988

  15. [21]

    A comment on nernst’s theorem,

    P. T. Landsberg, “A comment on nernst’s theorem,” Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General 22, 139 (1989)

    1989

  16. [23]

    Nonequivalence of the nernst-simon and unattainability statements of the third law of ther- modynamics,

    John C. Wheeler, “Nonequivalence of the nernst-simon and unattainability statements of the third law of ther- modynamics,” Physical Review A 43, 5289 (1991)

    1991

  17. [24]

    Question 34. what is the third law of thermodynamics trying to tell us?

    Steve Blau and Brad Halfpap, “Question 34. what is the third law of thermodynamics trying to tell us?” American Journal of Physics 64, 13–14 (1996)

    1996

  18. [25]

    Answer to question 34. what is the third law of thermodynamics trying to tell us?

    Peter T Landsberg, “Answer to question 34. what is the third law of thermodynamics trying to tell us?” American Journal of Physics 65, 269–270 (1997)

    1997

  19. [26]

    Salvador Maf´ e and Juan de la Rubia, “Answer to question

  20. [27]

    Massanes and oppenheim on the third law of thermodynamics,

    Jos Uffink, “Massanes and oppenheim on the third law of thermodynamics,” Foundations of Physics47, 871–872 (2017)

    2017

  21. [28]

    Answer to question 34. what is the third law of thermodynamics trying to tell us?

    C Rose-Innes, “Answer to question 34. what is the third law of thermodynamics trying to tell us?” American Journal of Physics 67, 27 (1999)

    1999

  22. [29]

    Notes on the third law of thermodynamics: I,

    F. Belgiorno, “Notes on the third law of thermodynamics: I,” Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General 36, 8165 (2003)

    2003

  23. [30]

    Universal re- strictions to the conversion of heat into work derived from the analysis of the nernst theorem as a uniform limit,

    J.M. Mart ´ ın-Olalla and A. Rey De Luna, “Universal re- strictions to the conversion of heat into work derived from the analysis of the nernst theorem as a uniform limit,” Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General 9 energy conservation Planck’s statement W >0⇒Qc <0 order...

    2003

  24. [31]

    Confusion and clarification: Albert einstein and walther nernst’s heat theorem, 1911–1916,

    A. J. Kox, “Confusion and clarification: Albert einstein and walther nernst’s heat theorem, 1911–1916,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 37, 101–114 (2006)

    1911

  25. [32]

    Teaching the third law of thermody- namics,

    A. Y. Klimenko, “Teaching the third law of thermody- namics,” The Open Thermodynamics Journal 6, 1–14 (2012)

    2012

  26. [33]

    What is the third law?

    Gian Paolo Beretta and Elias Panayotis Gyftopoulos, “What is the third law?” Journal of Energy Resources Technology, Transactions of the ASME 137 (2015), 10.1115/1.4026380/372861

    2015 doi

  27. [34]

    what is the third law of thermodynamics trying to tell us?” American Journal of Physics 66, 277 (1998)

    1998

  28. [35]

    A general derivation and quantification of the third law of ther- modynamics,

    Llu ´ ıs Massanes and Jonathan Oppenheim, “A general derivation and quantification of the third law of ther- modynamics,” Nature Communications 8, 1–7 (2017)

    2017

  29. [36]

    A concise proof of the equivalence of the nernst theorem and the heat capacity statement of the third law of thermodynamics,

    Shanhe Su and Jincan Chen, “A concise proof of the equivalence of the nernst theorem and the heat capacity statement of the third law of thermodynamics,” Modern Physics Letters A 37, 2250246 (2022)

    2022

  30. [37]

    A concise rebuttal on a con- 10 cise proof of the equivalence of the nernst theorem and the heat capacity statement of the third law of thermody- namics,

    Jos´ e Mar ´ ıa Mart ´ ın-Olalla, “A concise rebuttal on a con- 10 cise proof of the equivalence of the nernst theorem and the heat capacity statement of the third law of thermody- namics,” Modern Physics Letters A 39, 2475003 (2024)

    2024

  31. [38]

    Walther Hermann Nernst, The New Heat Theorem: Its Foundations in Theory and Experimental (Dover, 1924)

    1924

  32. [39]

    Thermodynamik und spezi- fische w¨ arme,

    Walther Hermann Nernst, “Thermodynamik und spezi- fische w¨ arme,” Sitzber. preuss. Akad. Wiss. Physik-math K, 134 (1912)

    1912

  33. [40]

    Zur theorie der spezifischen w¨ armen,

    P. Debye, “Zur theorie der spezifischen w¨ armen,” An- nalen der Physik 344, 789–839 (1912)

    1912

  34. [41]

    Zur elektronentheorie der metalle auf grund der fermischen statistik - i. teil: Allgemeines, str¨ omungs- und austrittsvorg¨ ange,

    A. Sommerfeld, “Zur elektronentheorie der metalle auf grund der fermischen statistik - i. teil: Allgemeines, str¨ omungs- und austrittsvorg¨ ange,” Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik 47, 1–32 (1928)

    1928

  35. [43]

    Ueber die berechnung chemischer gle- ichgewichte aus thermischen messungen,

    W. Nernst, “Ueber die berechnung chemischer gle- ichgewichte aus thermischen messungen,” Nachrichten von der Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu G¨ ottingen, Mathematisch-Physikalische Klasse 1906, 1–40 (1906)

    1906

  36. [44]

    Young, Phase Diagrams of the Elements , Tech

    David A. Young, Phase Diagrams of the Elements , Tech. Rep. (Lawrence Livermore Laboratory UCLA, 1975)

    1975

  37. [45]

    Max Planck, Vorlesungen ueber Thermodynamik, 6th ed. (W. de Gruyter, 1921)

    1921

  38. [46]

    Institut International de physique Solvay, La structure de la mati` ere. Rapports et discussions du Conseil de physique tenu ` a Bruxelles du 27 au 31 octobre 1913 , edited by Commission administrative de l’Institut Solvay (Gauthier-Villars et Cie, 1921)

    1913

  39. [47]

    P. S. Epstein, A Textbook of Thermodynamics (John Wi- ley and Sons, 1937)

    1937

  40. [48]

    A point of logic,

    Mary L Boas, “A point of logic,” American Journal of Physics 28, 675–675 (1960)

    1960

  41. [49]

    II (Blaisdell Pub

    Joseph Kestin, A course in Thermodynamics , Vol. II (Blaisdell Pub. Co., 1968)

    1968

  42. [50]

    Proof of the nernst theorem,

    Jos´ e-Mar ´ ıa Mart ´ ın-Olalla, “Proof of the nernst theorem,” The European Physical Journal Plus 140, 528 (2025)

    2025

  43. [51]

    Lev Davidovich Landau and E. M. Lifshitz, Statistical Physics (Pergamon Press, 1968)

    1968

  44. [52]

    Some considerations concerning nernst’s theorem,

    F. E. Simon, “Some considerations concerning nernst’s theorem,” Zeitschrift fur Naturforschung - Section A Journal of Physical Sciences 6, 397–400b (1951)

    1951

  45. [53]

    Die plancksche theorie der strahlung und die theorie der spezifischen w¨ arme,

    A. Einstein, “Die plancksche theorie der strahlung und die theorie der spezifischen w¨ arme,” Annalen der Physik 327, 180–190 (1907)

    1907

  46. [54]

    Sadi Carnot, R´ eflexions sur le puissance motrice du feu, et sur les machines propes ` a d` eveloper cette puissance (Bachelier, Paris, 1824)

  47. [55]

    What is heat?

    Gian Paolo Beretta and Elias Panayotis Gyftopou- los, “What is heat?” Journal of Energy Resources Technology, Transactions of the ASME 137 (2015), 10.1115/1.4026382/372874

    2015 doi

  48. [56]

    Bounded energy exchange as an al- ternative to the third law of thermodynamics,

    Matthias Heidrich, “Bounded energy exchange as an al- ternative to the third law of thermodynamics,” Annals of Physics 373, 665–681 (2016)

    2016

  49. [57]

    R H Fowler and E A Guggenheim, Statistical Thermody- namics (Cambridge, 1939)

    1939

  50. [58]

    The concept of temperature and its de- pendence on the laws of thermodynamics,

    Philip Ehrlich, “The concept of temperature and its de- pendence on the laws of thermodynamics,” American Journal of Physics 49, 622–632 (1981)

    1981

  51. [59]

    The carnot engine in the vicinity of 0k,

    R L Liboff, “The carnot engine in the vicinity of 0k,” Physics Essays 7, 95–98 (1994)

    1994

  52. [60]

    A Centennial Edition, edited by Paul Arthur Schilpp (Open Court Pub- lishing Company, 1979)

    Albert Einstein, Autobiographical Notes. A Centennial Edition, edited by Paul Arthur Schilpp (Open Court Pub- lishing Company, 1979). TIMELINE An early version of this manuscript was conceptualized on August 16th 2025. On January 12th 2026 the Au- thor gave a talk to the Grupo...

    1979

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.