|Irreversible process has been listed as a level-5 vital article in Science, Physics. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as Start-Class by the WikiProject Vital Articles.|
|WikiProject Physics||(Rated Start-class, High-importance)|
A reference was recently added to this article using the Cite DOI template. The citation bot tried to expand the citation, but could not access the specified DOI. Please check that the DOI doi:10.1393/ncb/i2006-10035-8 has been correctly entered. If the DOI is correct, it is possible that it has not yet been entered into the CrossRef database. Please . The script that left this message was unable to track down the user who added the citation; it may be prudent to alert them to this message. Thanks, Citation bot 2 (talk) 10:16, 30 July 2010 (UTC) Paradoctor (talk) 10:47, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Is there any interest for a brief quotation of refereed papers on R. M. Santilli's studies of irreversibility via the Lie-admissible coverings of Lie's formulations? If so, I can provide a few references for consideration. Note that these studies occurred at the level of mechanics and are now under study at the level of thermodynamics as well. Cheers. Zkurko, November 26, 2013. -- Preceding unsigned comment added by Zkurko (talk o contribs) 18:35, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
I removed this:
This made no sense to me -- I can understand the topics, but not what is said about them. The second sentence has unclear grammar. The uncertainty principle is not the source of irreversibility in classical thermodynamics. "Higher or lower degree" says very little. "Must be" is unclear -- is it an imposed condition or a reluctant conclusion?
Is the author trying to define absolute irreversibility, then say that it doesn't describe what happens in thermodynamics, where we only have statistical irreversibility? This is a natural move, and the distinction would be welcome, but this treatment doesn't succeed at all. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 01:06, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
The phrase "Intuitively, a process is reversible if there is no dissipation," from a general perspective, seems wrong. Since, simply a spontaneous heat flow between a finite temperature difference does not include dissipation. Yet, it is certainly not reversible. The spontaneous heat flow is irreversible, not because it represents dissipation, but because it violates a law of physics, the 2nd law. -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 00:33, 4 March 2022 (UTC)