SciPost Submission Page
Methods and Conversations in (Post)Modern Thermodynamics
by Francesco Avanzini, Massimo Bilancioni, Vasco Cavina, Sara Dal Cengio, Massimiliano Esposito, Gianmaria Falasco, Danilo Forastiere, Nahuel Freitas, Alberto Garilli, Pedro E. Harunari, Vivien Lecomte, Alexandre Lazarescu, Shesha G. Marehalli Srinivas, Charles Moslonka, Izaak Neri, Emanuele Penocchio, William D. Piñeros, Matteo Polettini, Adarsh Raghu, Paul Raux, Ken Sekimoto, Ariane Soret
This Submission thread is now published as
Submission summary
| Authors (as registered SciPost users): | Pedro Harunari · Izaak Neri |
| Submission information | |
|---|---|
| Preprint Link: | https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.01250v2 (pdf) |
| Date accepted: | 2024-02-05 |
| Date submitted: | 2024-01-22 10:23 |
| Submitted by: | Harunari, Pedro |
| Submitted to: | SciPost Physics Lecture Notes |
| Ontological classification | |
|---|---|
| Academic field: | Physics |
| Specialties: |
|
| Approach: | Theoretical |
Abstract
Lecture notes after the doctoral school (Post)Modern Thermodynamics held at the University of Luxembourg, December 2022, 5-7, covering and advancing continuous-time Markov chains, network theory, stochastic thermodynamics, large deviations, deterministic and stochastic chemical reaction networks, metastability, martingales, quantum thermodynamics, and foundational issues.
Author comments upon resubmission
Relevant comments can be found in the response to such a report.
List of changes
- Removed the unified notation proposal and moved its discussion to the introduction
- Each lecture now has its list of references
- Lecture 9: a few fixed typos
- Lecture 10: added references to further literature in the introduction
- Lecture 11: title changed to “(Post)Modern” Thermodynamics?
- Lecture 11: changed the introduction, included some remarks inspired by the report, and added a reference to Evelyn Fox Keller's interview
Published as SciPost Phys. Lect. Notes 80 (2024)
Reports on this Submission
Strengths
See report 1
Weaknesses
See report 1
Report
The authors have given careful consideration and appropriate answers to the points raised in my previous report. I accept their reasons not to change the title of the lectures, and recommend publication in their present form.
I wish to thank the authors for pointing out the implications of the discussion in Lecture 5.
Requested changes
None