## 2-62-2. Peter Guthrie Tait: Review of Poincaré, Thermodynamique

[14.01.1892]^{1}^{1}Book review, published in *Nature* 45 on
14.01.1892 (Tait 1892).

*Thermodynamique.* Leçons professées …par H. Poincaré,
Membre de l’Institut. Pp. xix, 432. (Paris : Georges Carré,
1892.)

The great expectations with which, on account of the well-won fame of its Author, we took up this book have unfortunately not been realized. The main reason is not far to seek, and requires no lengthened exposition. Its nature will be obvious from the following examples.

The late Prof. W.H. Miller, as able a mathematician as he was a
trustworthy experimenter, regularly commenced his course of
Crystallography at Cambridge (after seizing the chalk and drawing a
diagram on the black board) with the words: ‘‘Gentlemen, let O$x$,
O$y$, O$z$ be the coordinate axes.’’^{2}^{2}William Hallowes Miller
(1801–1880). And, some forty years ago, in a certain mathematical
circle at Cambridge, men were wont to deplore the necessity of
introducing words *at all* in a physico-mathematical text-book:
the unattainable, though closely approachable, Ideal being regarded as
a work devoid of aught but formulæ!

But one learns something in forty years, and accordingly the surviving members of that circle now take a very different view of the matter. They have been taught, alike by experience and by example, to regard mathematics, so far at least as physical inquiries are concerned, as a mere auxiliary to thought: of a vastly higher order of difficulty, no doubt, than ordinary numerical calculations, but still to be regarded as of essentially the same kind. This is one of the great truths which were enforced by Faraday’s splendid career.

And the consequence, in this country at least, has been that we find
in the majority of the higher class of physical text-books few except
the absolutely indispensable formulæ. Take, for instance, that
profound yet homely and unpretentious work, Clerk-Maxwell’s
*Theory of Heat.*^{3}^{3}Maxwell
1888.
Even his great work, *Electricity*, though it seems to bristle with
formulæ, contains but few which are altogether unnecessary.^{4}^{4}Maxwell
1891.
Compare it, in this respect, with the best of more recent works on the same advanced
portions of the subject.

In M. Poincaré’s work, however, all this is changed. Over and
over again, in the frankest manner (see, for instance, pp. xvi,
176), he confesses that he lays himself open to the charge of
introducing unnecessary mathematics: and there are many other
places where, probably thinking such a confession would be too
palpably superfluous, he does not feel constrained to make it.
This feature of his work, at least, is sure to render it acceptable
to one limited but imposing body, the *Examiners for the Mathematical
Tripos (Part II.).*

M. Poincaré not only ranks very high indeed among pure mathematicians
but has done much excellent and singularly original work in applied
mathematics: all the more therefore should he be warned to bear in
mind the words of Shakespeare^{5}^{5}Isabella to Angelo, in
*Measure for Measure*, act 2, scene 2.

‘‘Oh ! it is excellent

To have a giant’s strength; but it is tyrannous

To use it like a giant.’’

From the physical point of view, however, there is much more
than this to be said. For mathematical analysis, like arithmetic,
should never be appealed to in a physical inquiry till unaided
thought has done its utmost. Then, and not till then, is the investigator
in a position rightly to embody his difficulty in the language
of symbols, with a clear understanding of what is demanded from
their potent assistance. The violation of this rule is very frequent
in M. Poincaré’s work and is one main cause of its quite unnecessary
bulk. Solutions of important problems, which are avowedly imperfect
because based on untenable hypotheses (see, for instance, §§ 284–286),
are not useful to a student, even as a warning: they
are much more likely to create confusion, especially when a complete
solution, based upon full experimental data and careful thought,
can be immediately afterwards placed before him. If something
is really desired, in addition to the complete solution of any
problem, the proper course is to prefix to the complete treatment
one or more exact solutions of simple cases. This course is almost
certain to be useful to the student. The whole of M. Poincaré’s
work savours of the consciousness of mathematical power: and
exhibits a lavish, almost a reckless, use of it. Todhunter’s
favourite phrase, when one of his pupils happened to use processes
more formidable than the subject required, was ‘‘’Hm: — breaking
a fly on the wheel!’’ He would have had frequent occasion to use
it during a perusal of this volume. An excellent instance of
the dangerous results of this lavish display of mathematical
skill occurs at pp. 137–38, the greater part of which (*as printed*)
consists of a mass of error of which no one, certainly, would
accuse M. Poincaré. The cause must therefore be traced to the
unnecessary display of dexterity with which, after obtaining
the equation

$${Q}_{2}/{Q}_{1}=1-Af({T}_{1},{T}_{2}),$$ |

where the *order* of the suffixes is evidently of paramount
importance, M. Poincaré proceeded to say ‘‘Nous pouvons
donc écrire

$${Q}_{1}/{Q}_{2}=\mathrm{\Phi}({T}_{1},{T}_{2})\text{.\u2019\u2019}$$ |

But his unfortunate printer, not prepared for such a *tour de
force*, very naturally repeated the ${Q}_{2}/{Q}_{1}$ of the first
equation, with the result of wholly falsifying all that follows. On
the other hand, we must fully recognize that, when more formidable
analysis is really required (as, for instance, in the treatment of v. Helmholtz’s monocyclic and polycyclic systems), M. Poincaré seems to
feel so thoroughly at home as to criticize with
freedom.

One test of the soundness of an author, writing on Thermodynamics, is
his treatment of temperature, and his introduction of absolute
temperature. M. Poincaré gets over this part of his work very
expeditiously. In §§ 15–17 temperature, $t$, is conventionally
defined as in the Centigrade thermometer by means of the volume of a
given quantity of mercury; or by any continous function of that volume
which increases along with it. Next (§ 22) absolute temperature, $T$,
is defined, provisionally and with a caution, as $273+t$; from the
(so-called) laws of Mariotte and Gay-Lussac. Then, finally (§ 118),
absolute temperature is virtually defined afresh as the reciprocal of
Carnot’s function. [We say *virtually*, as we use the term in
the sense defined by Thomson. M. Poincaré’s *fonction de
Carnot* is a different thing.] But there seems to be no hint given
as to the results of experiments made expressly to compare these two
definitions. Nothing, for instance, in this connection at all events,
is said about the long-continued early experimental work of Joule and
Thomson, which justified them in basing the measurement of absolute
temperature on Carnot’s function.

In saying this, however, we must most explicitly disclaim any
intention of charging M. Poincaré with even a trace of that
sometimes merely invidious, sometimes purely Chauvinistic, spirit
which has done so much to embitter discussions of the history
of the subject. On the contrary, we consider that he gives far
too little prominence to the really extraordinary merits of his
own countryman Sadi Carnot. He writes not as a partisan but rather
as one to whom the history of the subject is a matter of all
but complete indifference. So far, in fact, does he carry this
that the name of Mayer, which frequently occurs, seems to be
spelled incorrectly on by far the greater number of these
occasions!^{6}^{6}Julius Robert von Mayer (1814–1878).
He makes, however, one very striking historical statement (§ 95):
‘‘Clausius …lui donna le nom de *Principe de Carnot*, bien
qu’il l’eût énoncé sans avoir connaissance des travaux de
Sadi Carnot.’’

Still, one naturally expects to find, in a Treatise such as this,
some little allusion at least to Thermodynamic Motivity; to its
waste, the Dissipation of Energy; and to the rest of those important
early results of Sir W. Thomson, which have had such immense
influence on the development of the subject. We look in vain
for any mention of Rankine or of his Thermodynamic Function;
though we have enough, and to spare, of it under its later *alias*
of Entropy. The word dissipation does indeed occur, for we are
told in the Introduction that the *Principe de Carnot* is ‘‘*la
dissipation de l’entropie*.’’^{7}^{7}Poincaré 1892, 1.

We find Bunsen and Mousson cited, with regard to the effect of
pressure upon melting points, almost before a word is said of
James Thomson; and, when that word does come, it wholly fails
to exhibit the real nature or value of the great advance he
made.^{8}^{8}Robert Bunsen, Albert Mousson (1805–1890).

Andrews again, *à propos* of the critical point, and his
splendid work on the isothermals of carbonic acid, comes in for
the barest mention only *after* a long discussion of those
very curves, and of the equations suggested for them by Van der
Waals, Clausius, and Sarrau: though his work was the acknowledged
origin of their attempts.^{9}^{9}Thomas Andrews (1813–1885), J.D. van der Waals,
Rudolf Clausius, Émile Sarrau.

The reason for all this is, as before hinted, that M. Poincaré has, in this work, chosen to play almost exclusively the part of the pure technical analyst; instead of that of the profound thinker, though he is perfectly competent to do that also when he pleases. And, in his assumed capacity, he quite naturally looks with indifference, if not with absolute contempt, on the work of the lowly experimenter. Yet, in strange contradiction to this, and still more in contradiction to his ascription of the Conservation of Energy to Mayer, he says of that principle: ‘‘personne n’ignore que c’est un fait expérimental.’’

Even the elaborate thermo-electric experiments of Sir W. Thomson, Magnus, &c., are altogether ignored. What else can we gather from passages like the following?

(§ 287) ‘‘Sir W. Thomson admet qu’il existe une force électromotrice au contact de deux portions d’un même conducteur à des températures différentes; il assimile donc ces deux portions à deux conducteurs de nature différente, assimilation qui paraît très vraisemblable.’’

(§ 291) ‘‘…si l’effet Thomson a pu être mis en évidence par l’expérience, on n’a pu jusqu’ici constater l’existence des forces électromotrices qui lui donnent naissance.’’

Everyone who comes to this work of M. Poincaré fresh from the study of
Clerk-Maxwell’s little treatise (or of the early papers of Thomson, to
which it owed much) will feel as if transferred to a totally new
world. Let him look, for instance, at Maxwell’s treatment of the
Thermodynamic Relations, Intrinsic and Available Energy, &c., and
then turn to pp. 148–150 of M. Poincaré’s work. There he will find at
least a large portion of these most important matters embodied in what
it seems we are now to call the *Fonctions caractéristiques de
M. Massieu!*^{10}^{10}The functions to which Tait objects are those
François Jacques Dominique Massieu (1832–1896) presented in two
notes to the Paris Academy of Science on the ‘‘characteristic
functions of diverse fluids’’ (Massieu 1869b,
1869a). In the entropy representation of
thermodynamics, a Massieu function (also known as a
‘‘Massieu-Gibbs’’, ‘‘Gibbs’’, or ‘‘characteristic’’ function) is
defined by a Legendre transformation in which one extensive variable
(or several) is replaced by the conjugate intensive variable. For
Poincaré (1892, 150), a ‘‘great simplification’’ may
be realized in certain cases, as the equations of thermodynamics may
be expressed in terms of Massieu functions and their derivatives
alone.

But the most unsatisfactory part of the whole work is, it seems
to us, the entire ignoration of the true (*i.e.* the statistical)
basis of the second Law of Thermodynamics. According to Clerk-Maxwell
(*Nature,* xvii. 278)

‘‘The touch-stone of a treatise on Thermodynamics is what is called the second law.’’

We need not quote the very clear statement which follows this, as it is probably accessible to all our readers. It certainly has not much resemblance to what will be found on the point in M. Poincaré’s work: so little, indeed, that if we were to judge by these two writings alone it would appear that, with the exception of the portion treated in the recent investigations of v. Helmholtz, the science had been retrograding, certainly not advancing, for the last twenty years.

P. G. T.

PD. Tait 1892.

Time-stamp: "30.12.2016 11:06"

## References

- Addition au précédent Mémoire sur les fonctions caractéristiques. Comptes rendus hebdomadaires de l’Académie des sciences de Paris 69 (21), pp. 1057–1061. External Links: Link Cited by: 2-62-2. Peter Guthrie Tait: Review of Poincaré, Thermodynamique.
- Sur les fonctions caractéristiques des divers fluides. Comptes rendus hebdomadaires de l’Académie des sciences de Paris 69 (16), pp. 858–862. External Links: Link Cited by: 2-62-2. Peter Guthrie Tait: Review of Poincaré, Thermodynamique.
- Theory of Heat. 9th edition, Longmans, Green and Co, London. External Links: Link Cited by: 2-62-2. Peter Guthrie Tait: Review of Poincaré, Thermodynamique.
- A Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism. 3d edition, Oxford University Press, Oxford. External Links: Link Cited by: 2-62-2. Peter Guthrie Tait: Review of Poincaré, Thermodynamique.
- Thermodynamique. Georges Carré, Paris. External Links: Link Cited by: 2-62-2. Peter Guthrie Tait: Review of Poincaré, Thermodynamique, 2-62-2. Peter Guthrie Tait: Review of Poincaré, Thermodynamique.
- Poincaré’s Thermodynamics. Nature 45, pp. 245–246. External Links: Link Cited by: 2-62-2. Peter Guthrie Tait: Review of Poincaré, Thermodynamique, 2-62-2. Peter Guthrie Tait: Review of Poincaré, Thermodynamique.