Talk:Caloric theory

message: #Chang, 2003
#See, for example, Reflexions on the motive power of fire, by Sadi Carnot.
#Laplace, 1816
#For example, see Lauden, 1981
I have so far failed to identify 1, 3 & 4.
A possible candidate for (1) is: Chang H. (2004 - sic) Inventing Temperature: Measurement and Scientific Progress 
There are several books by Lauden that might contain the comments cited but none from 1981.
Can the original editors help? Cutler 20:27, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
4 may be 
Lauden `A confutation of convergent realism' Philosophy of Science 48 (1981) 19-49
----
The following should be the reference for Chang:
   Chang HS, Preservative realism and its discontents: Revisiting caloric, PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE 70 (5): 902-912 DEC 2003
This article states explicitly that temperature was the density of caloric.
For Laplace, Fox ("The caloric theory of gases from Lavoisier to Regnault", 1971), gives the following:
   P.S. Laplace, Sur la vitesse dus son dans l'air et dans l'eau (Annales de Chimie et de Physique 3, 1816)
This matches the Speed of Sound reference in the article.
The article by Lauden suggested above, does indeed mention caloric theory as an example (p. 33), also Chang refers to this article so I assume it is correct.
I will change the footnotes for all three references, if nobody objects. Wijnand 09:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do.--ragesoss 17:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Done.--Wijnand 15:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: I would like to remove this section of the article because it seems to be based solely on a reference in Changs paper to Lauden. In Laudens paper however, the caloric theory is only part of a list of many examples (he even concludes his list with "This list, which could be be extended ad nauseam..." (his italics)). Because of that, and because in the actual article on scientific realism caloric theory isn't mentioned, I feel that this section doesn't belong in an article about the history of caloric theory. Any thoughts on this? --Wijnand 09:46, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree I think that the best thing would be to move the text wholesale to scientific realism and maintain the link then leave it to a wp:cleanup in that article. Cutler 18:11, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've moved the section to scientific realism and added a cleanup tag. -- Wijnand 08:53, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Significance in the philosophy of science

message: What is the "Sir Isaac Newton’s pulse equation" cited in the text? I don't know and it's not easy to find very much on the web about the "pulse equation". Maybe there are different names for this equation that are more used?--Pokipsy76 16:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm puzzled too and posted the question on Talk:Isaac Newton but to no avail. It does seem such an obscure term but I'm sure, from context, that it is refering to the speed of sound in a gas. Cutler 19:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't know either, but agree with Cutler based on the context. Wijnand 10:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pulse equation? 

message: I've removed a section from "Successes" that is poorly written, has incorrect science, and most importantly, is not an extension of caloric theory and therefore cannot be considered a success:
Original caloric theory worked with an image of a continuous fluid. In quantum mechanical context, some aspects of discreteness extend the picture, for example, in the study of crystals in modern solid-state physics. Lattice vibrations of crystals, which are formally equivalent (but not identical) to some thermal energy, are quantized, and consequently have wave-particle duality.  The particle representation of a lattice vibration is called a phonon, by analogy with the photon. Note that the concepts of heat and mechanical vibration, which are often confused due to their similarity, show fundamental differences in spectroscopy and other physical phenomena.  
^^
While lattice vibrations of crystals are certianly related to heat, they are not quantized, they do *not* exhibit wave-particle duality, they are not analogous to photons in any sense at all, and the remainder of this section is non-pedagogical. 
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.239.5.169 (talk) 07:12, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terrible section under "Successes"