Re: Not long - and no math: Max Entropy - (cont)

[David Bowman <dbowman@tiger.gtc.georgetown.ky.us>]

Regarding Joel Rauber's comments:
> David,
>
> I have the feeling that our "differences", after you've corrected some of my 
> more obvious mistakes written in haste; are indeed in terms of what 
> constitutes a microstate and macrostate and even how to define equilibrium.
>
> I suspect that this is nothing more nor less than statements of 
> interpretation that arise from the philosophical differences (should I say 
> meta-physical) between the "information theory camp" and the 
> "traditionalists".  I'm guessing from what you have written ( the card 
> example, designed to tweak Leigh) that you are rather firmly in the 
> "information theory" camp.
>
> Do you think the above is a reasonably accurate assesment?

Your guess about me being in the "information theory camp" is correct. I also
agree that we seem to differ on just what constitutes the macrostate, and on
how to define equilibrium.  I don't know whether or not to go as far as
saying such differences are philosophical or metaphysical though.

> BTW Have you seen Robertson's "Statistical Thermophysics" text?  If not, or 
> for other readers; this is a fairly recent text (1993), that approaches the 
> study from the information theory standpoint and I think might make a good 
> introductory text to this approach.
>
> Joel

Yes, I have seen and enjoy Robertson's book, and I agree with its modern
perspective.  It seems too advanced for an *introductory* text to me though.
It strikes me as a graduate text.  I guess you meant that it is a good
introduction to the Bayesian/Maximum Entropy/Info Theory *approach* for
someone who already has some familiarity with stat mech from a more
traditional perspective.

David Bowman
dbowman@gtc.georgetown.ky.us