Talk:Crooks fluctuation theorem
Add topic | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
Fixed language of last passage
[edit]Changed 'fact' to 'phenomena' in last sentence.
"Note that for the backward transformation, the work distribution function must be evaluated by taking the work with the opposite sign. The two work distributions for the forward and backward processes cross at W=\Delta F . This fact has been experimentally verified using optical tweezers for the process of unfolding and refolding of a small RNA hairpin and an RNA three-helix junction [1]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Junipel (talk • contribs) 14:51, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Flawed definition
[edit]I believe the definition here is flawed; the CFT as I understand it deals with general non-equilibrium start and end states. The definition given here says that the start and end states are canonical ensembles, which implies (by definition) that they are equilibrium states. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.97.70.10 (talk) 05:11, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
- No. The starting state is taken from a canonical ensemble of A. The arrival state, if the transformation is done
- at finite speed, is a state of B that has low canonical probability. The same must be done in the reverse direction: draw a state from a canonical ensemble of B and arrive at a state of A with low canonical probability.
- From a practical standpoint, one must draw starting states form a canonical ensemble of A, performs the noneq
- transformations and build the distribution P_AB(W). Then he/she must do the reverse process (with inverted time
- protocol) by drawing B states from a canonical distribution and build the reverse distribution P_AB(-W). DG is given by the crossing point of the two distributions. 79.43.120.157 (talk) 11:44, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
What is sigma?
[edit]The first equation in the article contains a quantity σ[x(t)] that seems not to be defined, though the subsequent discussion in effect defines it. Clearer exposition would be very desirable.--Brian Josephson (talk) 20:22, 17 July 2020 (UTC)