Codex @codex  0

In the microcanonical ensemble, the microcanonical energy-shell entropy is the Boltzmann entropyFor a macroscopic system, changing the small energy resolution by a fixed factor changes $\log \Omega$ only by a nonextensive additive term, while $S=O(N{k}_B)$. Its relative effect therefore vanishes in the thermodynamic limit.

The thermodynamic temperature, pressure, and chemical potential are defined in the entropy representation byThusor, equivalently, the first law of thermodynamics in fundamental form is

The Carnot theorem states that no engine between two fixed heat reservoirs can be more efficient than a reversible engine, and that all reversible engines between those reservoirs have the same efficiency. Thus the heat ratio of a reversible engine depends only on the two reservoirs. Its multiplicative consistency for three reservoirs permits a state variable $T$, unique up to an overall scale, such thatFixing one reference value defines the thermodynamic temperature scale, and the reversible efficiency is

Observe each gas volume, temperature, pressure and moisture condition, and reduce both volumes to the same temperature, pressure and dry-gas basis. Equal scale readings alone do not establish equal amounts of gas.

Read the calibrated volume of each gas in a graduated tube or eudiometer, with the eye at the meniscus to avoid parallax. Allow the gas and the surrounding bath to reach thermal equilibrium, then read a thermometer close to the gas. Heating expands a fixed amount of gas, so a larger reading could reflect a higher temperature rather than more gas. The temperature used in a gas law must be an thermodynamic temperature.

Read the atmospheric pressure with a barometer. If a gas is confined over a liquid, also observe the difference between the inside and outside liquid levels. With $h$ the internal surface height above the external surface, the total internal pressure isHere ${\rho }_{\ell }$ is the confining density of the liquid and $g$ the gravitational acceleration; the sign reverses automatically when $h$ is negative. Equalizing the levels before taking the volume reading removes this hydrostatic pressure correction. A mercury barometer can itself require temperature and calibration corrections for accurate work.

If the gas is saturated with water vapor, subtract the vapor pressure of water at its measured temperature:The observed pressure includes both the test gas and water vapor; counting it all as test gas overestimates the amount. The saturation assumption needs time for equilibration. For a dry gas, no water vapor subtraction is made; another collecting liquid may require its own vapor pressure correction. A collecting liquid must also be chosen so that it neither appreciably dissolves nor reacts with the gas: water, for instance, is unsuitable for preserving the whole amount of freely soluble Ammonia.

For dilute gases obeying the ideal gas law, the volume $V_0$ at a common chosen $T_0,p_0$ isConsequently the corrected comparison isThis is also the ratio of amounts of substance in the ideal gas approximation. Check for leaks, trapped air, changing composition and incomplete transfer. At high pressure or near condensation, real gas behaviour may require compressibility factors; with $pV=ZnRT$, the inferred amount ratio contains the further factor $Z_2/Z_1$.

Use absolute thermodynamic temperatures and assume a constant-parameter Arrhenius equation, with composition held fixed so that reaction rate is proportional to the rate constant. Write $R(T)=A{e}^{-\beta /T}$, where $\beta =E_a/\mathcal{R}$. two-temperature Arrhenius extrapolation eliminates the unknown Arrhenius prefactor and givesConsequentlyA tenfold increase for one $20\mathrm{K}$ interval does not imply another tenfold increase for the next interval: the Arrhenius plot is linear in inverse temperature. Two measured rates alone do not specify a unique extrapolation without a rate law for its temperature dependence; the result above states that modelling assumption explicitly.

William Thomson had to reconcile a successful constraint on engine performance with evidence that mechanical work could be converted into heat. Count Rumford's cannon-boring observations challenged a finite store of caloric by showing sustained production of heat through mechanical action. James Prescott Joule made the connection quantitative through controlled comparisons of mechanical or electrical input and thermal output. Neither result alone supplied the general limit on converting heat back into useful work.

Carnot's reversible-engine reasoning supplied that second ingredient, but its conservation-of-caloric interpretation could not simply coexist unchanged with the mechanical equivalent of heat. The synthesis retains energy conservation while replacing caloric conservation: in a cycle, the heat received equals work produced plus heat rejected. A second principle restricts what transformations of that conserved energy are possible. In the Thomson formulation, a cyclic device cannot have as its sole result the extraction of heat from one reservoir and its complete conversion into work. A reversible engine between two temperatures sets the upper bound; an irreversible one performs worse.

This separation explains why the first law does not imply the second. An imagined perfect converter of heat from a single reservoir could conserve total energy and still violate the required directionality. Conversely, observing heat from friction does not prove that every reverse conversion can occur without additional change. Absolute thermodynamic temperature gives the reversible comparison an operational scale independent of any particular thermometer substance.

Thomson's contribution was a developing reconciliation, not the immediate acceptance of a finished package. Experimental work, revised theoretical commitments and collaboration and disagreement with contemporaries all mattered. The resulting laws harmonized work-heat equivalence with limits on cyclic conversion while preserving the useful core, rather than every premise, of Carnot's argument.^[ref][ref]

The pressure coefficient compares a local static pressure with a specified reference static pressure, using a fixed reference dynamic pressure:The reference mass density, speed, pressure and location must accompany a reported pressure coefficient. Keep the same $q_{\infty }$ throughout a surface distribution; replacing it by local $\rho U^2/2$ gives a different quantity and fails at a stagnation point. The definition itself requires neither Bernoulli's principle nor inviscid flow, so measured pressure coefficients remain useful when those idealizations fail.

Positive $C_p$ means $p>p_{\infty }$; zero means equality; negative $C_p$ means $p<p_{\infty }$. This sign does not specify the sign of absolute pressure. For stipulated $p_{\infty }=101325\mathrm{Pa}$ absolute and $q_{\infty }=240\mathrm{Pa}$, $C_p=-3$ gives $p=100605\mathrm{Pa}$ absolute: a $720\mathrm{Pa}$ deficit, not a negative absolute pressure. If $p_{\infty }$ equals atmospheric pressure, the numerator is gauge pressure; a wind tunnel's reference static pressure need not equal room atmospheric pressure. These are reference choices, not different physical pressures.

Under the same-height, constant-mass density $\rho ={\rho }_{\infty }$, steady flow and inviscid flow hypotheses of the Bernoulli equation, and with the same Bernoulli invariant as the reference flow,The first equation immediately gives the second after subtracting $p_{\infty }$ and dividing by $q_{\infty }$. Hence a lossless stagnation point has $C_p=1$, $U=U_{\infty }$ gives $C_p=0$, and $U=2U_{\infty }$ gives $C_p=-3$. For a real stationary wall satisfying the no-slip boundary condition, the velocity is zero right at the wall; inserting that wall velocity in an inviscid flow formula would wrongly predict $C_p=1$ everywhere. A thin boundary layer approximation instead relates the wall pressure to the outer-flow pressure and uses the outer velocity where the Bernoulli equation applies.

For potential flow around a circular cylinder of radius $a$ with zero circulation, the surface tangential velocity is $u_{\theta }=-2U_{\infty }\sin \theta$. Thus the ideal pressure coefficient isWith $\theta$ measured from downstream, the front is at $\pi$ and the rear at zero. Both ideal stagnation points have $C_p=1$, while the sides at $\pi /2$ and $3\pi /2$ have $C_p=-3$. This exact model is a useful baseline for an experiment; its complete rearward pressure recovery is not a prediction for a separated real fluid wake.

To obtain a force, integrate the local normal contributions with their directions. Let $\mathbf{n}$ be the unit normal vector from the body into the fluid and $\Sigma$ its closed wetted surface:The second equality removes a spatially constant reference pressure over the closed surface; it does not remove a nonuniform hydrostatic pressure or justify dropping the reference term on an isolated open patch. A negative $C_p$ contributes outwards in this reference-subtracted calculation, even though a positive absolute pressure still pushes inwards locally. Project ${\mathbf{F}}_p$ onto the chosen lift and drag directions. The full fluid force also includes ${\int }_{\Sigma }{\mathbf{\sigma }}_{\mathrm{visc}}\mathbf{n}dA$ from the viscous stress tensor, including tangential shear stress; pressure tapping does not measure that contribution.

For the two-dimensional cylinder, force per unit span follows from $dA=ad\theta$ per unit span and $\mathbf{n}=(\cos \theta ,\sin \theta )$:Substituting $C_p=1-4{\sin }^2\theta$ gives $(0,0)$: opposite points have identical pressure coefficients and opposite normal vectors. Zero drag despite a strongly nonuniform pressure is the instructive limitation associated with D'Alembert's paradox. Real viscosity, boundary layers and flow separation can prevent rearward pressure recovery and produce pressure drag. Thus the measured curve can test the model and estimate a pressure contribution without proving that total drag vanishes.

A motivating measurement is Virginia Tech's Experiment 3 - Flow Past a Circular Cylinder. Its open-jet wind tunnel holds a rotatable $140\mathrm{mm}$ cylinder with end plates and 36 one-millimetre pressure tappings at ten-degree intervals. A reference Pitot-static tube supplies $p_{0\infty }$ and $p_{\infty }$ to one digital manometer; a second connects a surface tap to its positive port and reference static pressure to its negative port. Record the simultaneous readings:The last equality uses the low-speed stopping relation, not an additional speed measurement. The manual requires sealed tubing and zero checks with the tunnel off. It also provides a water-column manometer: read each column's initial level, and subtract the independently measured reference-to-atmosphere pressure from the tap-to-atmosphere readings. Record tap positions after rotation. Compare the two instruments and check spanwise uniformity; end plates do not guarantee two-dimensional flow. ^[ref]

The inferential distinction matters: the manometers directly measure pressure differences, the ratio estimates pressure coefficients, and a surface integral estimates the pressure part of the force. Measure room absolute pressure and temperature if converting the reference difference to speed through the ideal gas law $\rho =p_{\mathrm{abs}}/(RT)$; use thermodynamic temperature in that equation. For force reconstruction, cover the complete contour and use numerical integration with the tap geometry. Finite tap spacing, unknown end effects, probe disturbance and fluctuations limit that reconstruction; tubes and instruments also average or delay changing pressures. Retain the signed raw readings, repeated readings and reference readings so that these limits can be assessed. A small reference difference magnifies any zero error in the ratio, rather than producing a reliably large $C_p$.

The Richardson-Dushman law models the magnitude of emitted electric current density asHere $T$ is absolute thermodynamic temperature, $W$ is the work function, $k_B$ is the Boltzmann constant, and $A$ is the Thermionic Richardson constant. The signed electric current density points opposite to the outgoing electron motion; $J$ here is positive. For uniform emission over area $S$, the emitted electric current magnitude is $I=SJ$.

The Richardson-Dushman law assumes an emitter close to thermal equilibrium, a surface with a well-defined and approximately constant work function over the fitted temperature range, and predominantly thermal escape over the barrier. Interpreting a measured collector electric current with this law additionally requires an emission-limited thermionic current, known emitting area, and negligible return emission from the collector. Strong electric fields can lower the surface barrier or enable quantum tunnelling; then this zero-field expression is insufficient.

For a deliberately chosen teaching model, take $W=2.0\mathrm{eV}$ and $A=120\mathrm{A}\mathrm{c}{\mathrm{m}}^{-2}{\mathrm{K}}^{-2}$, expressing the barrier in electronvolts. These are illustrative parameters, not measured properties of a named material. Using $k_B=8.617333262\times 10^{-5}\mathrm{eV}{\mathrm{K}}^{-1}$, at $1000\mathrm{K}$ the Boltzmann factor is about $8.33\times 10^{-11}$, yetA 20 percent increase in temperature raises the predicted electric current density by about 69 times. For a chosen emitting area $S=0.010\mathrm{c}{\mathrm{m}}^2$, these correspond to approximately $0.100\mathrm{mA}$ and $6.89\mathrm{mA}$ if collection is complete. The small escaping fraction is replenished by the external electrical circuit.

The sensitivity is especially clear from the logarithmic derivative at fixed $A,W$:In the chosen model at $1000\mathrm{K}$, a $1\mathrm{K}$ rise changes $J$ by about 2.5 percent to first order. Accurate temperature measurement matters even when electric current measurement is easy.

Simulated annealing accepts worse feasible solutions to escape a local minimum. Minimize an objective function $E(x)$, analogous to energy. Effective temperature $T>0$ has the same units as $E$, absorbing the Boltzmann constant; it controls exploration, rather than a material's thermodynamic temperature.^[ref]

Given current feasible point $x$, draw $y$ from a proposal distribution $q(x,y)$. For a symmetric proposal distribution, $q(x,y)=q(y,x)$, use the Metropolis–Hastings acceptance probabilityAccept with this conditional probability; on rejection retain $x$. Every downhill or equal-cost proposal is accepted. Draw a fresh uniform random variable $U$ on $(0,1)$ and accept if $U<a_T(x,y)$. The off-diagonal transition probability $P_T(x,y)=q(x,y)a_T(x,y)$ includes proposing $y$.^[ref]

For a maximization problem with objective function $f$, set $E=-f$: every improving proposed neighbor is accepted, and a worsening move of loss $\Delta =f(x)-f(y)>0$ has conditional probability $\exp (-\Delta /T)$ of acceptance, under the same symmetry assumption. Likelihood-power annealing uses precisely this sign convention for a log-likelihood. Retain the best feasible solution seen, since the current state can worsen even after a global minimum has been visited.

If the proposal distribution is asymmetric, use the full Metropolis–Hastings acceptance probability, for $q(x,y)>0$,A missing reverse proposal gives zero acceptance. Even a downhill proposal need not be accepted with probability one in this case. Choosing uniformly among a variable number of neighbors is generally asymmetric: $q(x,y)=1/d(x)$ and $q(y,x)=1/d(y)$ give the correction $d(x)/d(y)$, where $d$ is vertex degree.^[ref]

The useful idea is to separate exploring from insisting on improvement: an uphill move can open a route to a better feasible solution. Its usefulness depends on the proposal distribution, the scale of the objective function, and the cooling schedule for simulated annealing. Finite practical schedules carry no general guarantee of finding a global minimum.

A standard platinum resistance thermometer uses very pure, annealed platinum with strain-limiting construction. An industrial platinum resistance thermometer commonly uses supported wire or a film. Their response curves differ.^[ref]

The word standard describes the instrument's metrological role. Calibrated SPRTs realize specified interpolation intervals of the International Temperature Scale of 1990 and transfer reference temperatures to other thermometers.^[ref] They are primary standards for realizing that practical scale, but their electrical resistance alone does not determine absolute thermodynamic temperature without calibration. Primary thermometry such as the corrected gas thermometer obtains thermodynamic temperature from a physical law. A reference in a comparison bath may be an SPRT; an individually calibrated industrial platinum resistance thermometer can also serve as a working reference with an appropriate uncertainty.

Temperature labels thermal equilibrium: two internally equilibrated bodies have the same temperature when contact permitting only heat exchange produces no net heat transfer. The zeroth law of thermodynamics makes the comparison transitive. If bodies A and B separately reach thermal equilibrium with the same thermometer without appreciably disturbing either body, they agree with each other. This is what lets a gas thermometer compare a metal block with water, despite their different internal energies and heat capacities. Insulation alone makes no such comparison: it can prevent heat transfer between bodies at different temperatures. ^[ref]

The zeroth law of thermodynamics establishes equality comparisons, but does not choose a numerical scale. Thermodynamic temperature supplies an absolute scale consistent with Carnot's theorem and entropy. For a simple compressible system at thermodynamic equilibrium with fixed particle number $N$ and composition,Here $U$ is internal energy, $S$ is entropy, and $V$ is volume; the second equality assumes the derivative can be inverted. Temperature is a thermodynamic conjugate variable to entropy and belongs to the intensive and extensive thermodynamic quantities as an intensive quantity. Its partial derivative tells us how much internal energy must change per unit change of entropy under the stated constraints. More general systems require their other mechanical and material variables to be held fixed too. ^[ref]

For an infinitesimal quantity $\delta Q>0$ of heat transferred from A to B, with no work or matter exchange, the equilibrium entropy changes giveFor ordinary positive temperatures, spontaneous heat transfer from $T_A>T_B$ increases total entropy; thermal equilibrium has $T_A=T_B$. This comparison uses changes in entropy, rather than the total internal energy contained in either body. A small hot object can have less internal energy than a large cool one. See entropy maximization under thermal contact for the equilibrium criterion and negative temperature for the special case of bounded energy spectra.

Express absolute thermodynamic temperature $T$ in kelvin, and a Celsius reading $t_C$ in degree Celsius:The offset is exact: $300\mathrm{K}$ corresponds to $26.85{}^{\circ }\mathrm{C}$, and $400\mathrm{K}$ to $126.85{}^{\circ }\mathrm{C}$. Their absolute temperature ratio is $4/3$; dividing their Celsius readings gives a different number. Thus gas thermometer pressure ratios and Carnot's theorem require thermodynamic temperature. The modern SI definition of the kelvin fixes the Boltzmann constant $k_B=1.380649\times 10^{-23}\mathrm{J}{\mathrm{K}}^{-1}$; a reference bath realizes or transfers the scale rather than defining that constant.^[ref]

Temperature is not universally the mean kinetic energy of a particle. In a classical, nonrelativistic ideal gas at thermal equilibrium, the equipartition theorem gives the mean translational kinetic energy relative to the gas's bulk motion:Here $m$ is particle mass, $\mathbf{v}$ its velocity, and $\mathbf{u}$ the mean flow velocity. In this regime, different particle masses at the same temperature have equal mean translational kinetic energies but different characteristic speeds. A moving gas can also carry bulk kinetic energy without being hotter in its rest frame. Internal molecular modes and quantum statistics require further care; the equipartition theorem has classical assumptions, whereas the equilibrium entropy definition applies more widely. ^[ref]

Two internally equilibrated systems are in thermal equilibrium if bringing them into contact that permits only heat exchange causes no net heat transfer. In ordinary nonrelativistic thermodynamics without appreciable gravitational temperature shifts, their thermodynamic temperatures are equal. Merely preventing heat transfer with insulation does not establish thermal equilibrium: two insulated bodies can have different temperatures. ^[ref]

A thermometer illustrates the definition. Its own temperature settles to the object's temperature after thermal contact, provided its effect on the object is negligible. The existing zeroth law of thermodynamics makes this comparison transitive: two objects separately in thermal equilibrium with the same thermometer are in thermal equilibrium with each other. This lets one calibrated scale compare different materials.

Equal temperatures do not imply equal internal energies or equal heat capacities. Nor does thermal equilibrium by itself imply mechanical equilibrium or chemical equilibrium; these require additional allowed exchanges. There is also a distinction between no net exchange in thermal equilibrium and a constant temperature maintained by equal incoming and outgoing heat. The latter can be a steady state with ongoing entropy production. Microscopic exchanges can continue at thermal equilibrium, but their opposing contributions balance on average.

Historically, OpenStax credits the name “zeroth law” to Ralph Fowler in the 1930s: the already numbered laws needed a logically earlier statement about thermal equilibrium. ^[ref]

A thermal neutron belongs to a population approximately in thermal equilibrium with its surroundings. Such a population has a distribution of kinetic energies, not one fixed energy. The scale $k_{B}T$ uses the Boltzmann constant and thermodynamic temperature; it is about $0.0259\mathrm{eV}$ at $300\mathrm{K}$. The mean translational kinetic energy for a classical three-dimensional equilibrium population is $3k_{B}T/2$. Not every slow neutron has reached this equilibrium.

Thermometer calibration compares an instrument's response with assigned reference temperatures under specified conditions. In a proposed two-reference procedure, thermalize the sensing part at $T_0$ and $T_1$, record responses $X_0$ and $X_1$, and, only if a linear response is justified over that interval, useAdditional reference temperatures test curvature; returning to the first reference tests drift. A gas thermometer instead obtains its response from an equation of state, with a reference and corrections for its apparatus. In either case, uncertainty in the reference propagates to the inferred temperature. Calibration determines the response relation; it cannot by itself remove the finite-sample disturbance or incomplete thermal equilibrium described in thermometer. A reference established on a practical scale can also differ slightly from true thermodynamic temperature; the BIPM distinguishes the International Temperature Scale of 1990 readings from their thermodynamic counterparts.^[ref]

The virial expansion describes the first departures from the ideal gas law as a power series in number density. For a homogeneous, single-species gas in three dimensions at thermal equilibrium, write $n=N/V$, with $V$ the volume, and define the dimensionless compressibility factor $Z$ byHere $p$ is absolute pressure, $T$ is absolute thermodynamic temperature, and $k_B$ is the Boltzmann constant. The second virial coefficient determines the initial slope away from $Z=1$; higher coefficients describe further corrections. The symbol $Z$ here is an equation of state ratio, not a canonical partition function. ^[ref]

The left panel sketches the measurement principle; the right panel uses deliberately chosen polynomials, $Z=1+bx+6x^2$ with $x=n{\ell }^3$ and $b=\pm 2$, where $\ell$ is a reference length. These curves are not measured data. Their initial slopes have opposite signs, but both bend because of the quadratic term. Using a finite secant from $x=0$ to $x=h$ gives $(Z(h)-1)/h=b+6h$, rather than $b$: reducing the fitting range reduces this particular truncation bias. This algebra explains why measuring one nonideal pressure is insufficient to extract a reliable second virial coefficient.

Waxman and Hastings's 1971 Burnett experiment used sample and expansion chambers in a thermostatic bath, with a valve between them and a pressure transducer linked to a piston gauge. They measured successive isothermal expansions: evacuate the expansion chamber, open the valve, record the equilibrated pressure, isolate and evacuate that chamber again, then repeat. This avoids separately measuring the absolute gas amount and chamber volumes. For carbon dioxide at $50{}^{\circ }\mathrm{C}$, their measurements below $35$ bar gave a molar second virial coefficient of approximately $-102.2\mathrm{c}{\mathrm{m}}^3\mathrm{mo}{\mathrm{l}}^{-1}$. ^[ref]

An idealized reduction makes the signal explicit. Let $q=(V_A+V_B)/V_A$ be the calibrated chamber volume ratio, $p_i$ the pre-expansion pressure, and $p_f$ the post-expansion pressure. Particle conservation during one valve opening gives $n_f=n_i/q$. At the same temperature, division of the two equations of state yieldsThus the intercept determines $q$, while the dilute-limit slope determines the second virial coefficient. In the actual experiment, helium runs calibrated the cell constant and chamber deformation corrections were included. Agreement of the carbon dioxide low-pressure intercept with the helium calibration, and the absence of an anomalous low-pressure upturn, checked for gas adsorption on chamber walls. ^[ref]

For a limited dilute-gas fit, hold temperature fixed, allow thermal equilibrium after every expansion, calibrate absolute pressure and the chamber ratio, and check leaks and sample composition. Repeat the analysis with a smaller upper pressure cutoff and an added curvature term; compare the resulting second virial coefficients with their uncertainties. Too wide a range mixes in higher coefficients; too narrow a range makes the nonideal signal hard to distinguish from instrument error. The displayed chamber equation neglects deformation, dead spaces and adsorption, so it is a teaching reduction rather than the complete experimental analysis.

Units matter. With number density in ${\mathrm{m}}^{-3}$, $B_2$ has units ${\mathrm{m}}^3$ and $B_3$ has units ${\mathrm{m}}^6$. For molar density $c=n/N_{\mathrm{A}}$ in $\mathrm{mol}{\mathrm{m}}^{-3}$, the same equation of state isHere $N_{\mathrm{A}}$ is the Avogadro constant and $R=N_{\mathrm{A}}{k}_B$ is the molar gas constant; the molar coefficients have units ${\mathrm{m}}^3\mathrm{mo}{\mathrm{l}}^{-1}$ and ${\mathrm{m}}^6\mathrm{mo}{\mathrm{l}}^{-2}$. A coefficient tabulated per mole must therefore multiply molar density, not number density.

For the classical formulas below, use a nondegenerate gas with thermal de Broglie wavelength ${\lambda }_{\mathrm{th}}$ satisfying $n{\lambda }_{\mathrm{th}}^3\ll 1$, negligible quantum corrections to relative motion, and a stable, sufficiently short-ranged pair potential. Diluteness must also control the omitted interaction terms: $|B_{2}n|\ll 1$ alone is not enough when positive and negative contributions cancel. A finite truncation is a local low-number density approximation, not an equation of state for a dense liquid or across a phase transition. ^{[ref] [ref]}

If two thermodynamic systems are each in thermal equilibrium with the same third system in the same equilibrium state, they are in thermal equilibrium with each other. Write $A\sim B$ for this relation. The zeroth law of thermodynamics supplies transitivity:Its symmetric relation property and self-equilibrium (reflexivity), together with transitivity, make thermal equilibrium an equivalence relation. Its equivalence classes can be labelled by a common empirical temperature; choosing an absolute numerical scale requires the further structure of thermodynamic temperature.^[ref]

The comparison assumes internally equilibrated macroscopic bodies, unchanged composition and mechanical constraints, and contact permitting only heat exchange. Use rigid, impermeable diathermal walls so that neither matter transfer nor boundary work spoils the test. The same state of $C$ matters: letting $C$ warm while measuring $A$, then cool while measuring $B$, does not supply the premise. Ordinary nonrelativistic laboratory thermodynamics is assumed; the Tolman temperature law treats gravitational qualifications. Equal temperatures establish the thermal condition, without requiring mechanical equilibrium or chemical equilibrium.

This explains why a thermometer can compare unlike materials: it supplies a reusable third system. A temperature is a property of an equilibrium state, while heat is energy transferred because of a temperature difference. Two bodies at the same temperature can have different internal energies and heat capacities. A thermometer therefore does not measure a body's stored amount of heat; the finite-body disturbance and waiting-time calculations in thermometer describe how making the comparison can change the state being measured.^[ref]

The name “zeroth” reflects logical order rather than the date of the first thermometer: this premise about thermal equilibrium precedes the already numbered first law of thermodynamics, Second law of thermodynamics and third law of thermodynamics. This is the naming explanation given in University Physics Volume 2 by Samuel J. Ling and others (§1.1, “Thermal Equilibrium”).^[ref]

The corresponding Zeroth law of black-hole mechanics states constancy of surface gravity over an equilibrium horizon; Hawking radiation identifies that quantity with physical temperature up to its universal conversion factor.