Talk:Caloric theory

References

1. Chang, 2003
2. See, for example, Reflexions on the motive power of fire, by Sadi Carnot.
3. Laplace, 1816
4. 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 ISBN 0195171276

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)

Please do.--ragesoss 17:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

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

Significance in the philosophy of science

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)

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)

I've moved the section to scientific realism and added a cleanup tag. -- Wijnand 08:53, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Pulse equation?

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)

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)

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

Incorrect definition of heat?

This article concludes: In this way, the caloric theory was absorbed into the annals of physics, and evolved into modern thermodynamics, in which heat is the kinetic energy of molecules. To my limited understanding this is an incorrect statement and in direct contrast with the article on heat within Wikipedia. Temperature is the kinetic energy of molecules, heat refers to a thermal energy transfer that can be kinetic, but it can also be caused by other phenomena such as radiation. Could someone with grater experts in this field pleas clarify this to me and amend the concluding paragraph of the main article if need be.

Thank you

Chopo

Very incorrect definition of heat

Heat is energy transfer, it should not be confused with internal energy, or a part of it. Heat is not a state function of the system, it is process dependent. Somebody should fix that definition. Because as it is, it's still tied to the caloric theory.

Terrible section under "Successes"

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)

Caloric/heat doesn't have to be a form of energy, rather it could have been entropy?

I've found some academic articles from German physicists that argue an interesting point that entropy fills the role of caloric/heat more properly:

• "Which Physical Quantity Deserves the Name “Quantity of Heat”?"
• "Entropy and the Experience of Heat"

In short the argument is we can accept caloric theory's idea of heat as a state variable, but instead say that the error was in requiring caloric to be perfectly conserved. Then, entropy is our man. Perhaps notable? --Nanite (talk) 06:41, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Requested move 22 June 2026

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus on Caloric theory, Caloric moved.. Quite a variety of opinions on this one. There is clear consensus for the second move. As for what should be done with Caloric, we have 3 editors explicitly favouring a DAB at the base name, 3 editors favouring Caloric theory/Caloric fluid being the WP:PTOPIC, 2 that I view to be implicitly favouring a DAB by opposing Caloric theory/Caloric fluid being the PTOPIC but without clearly stating what should be done with Caloric, 2 editors favouring Calorie being the PTOPIC and 1 editor who is neutral about this while supporting the second move. In addition to this, multiple editors have given second choices and a few have said that the DAB should be in place first, after which potential PTOPIC candidates can be evaluated.

Taken as a whole, there is no consensus for any of the options, so, for now, Caloric will have to be a DAB page. (closed by non-admin page mover) –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 00:51, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

---

• Caloric theory → Caloric
• Caloric → Caloric (brand)

– Surely caloric fluid is the ptopic for caloric, no? Dingolover6969 (talk) 20:49, 22 June 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. BD2412 T 00:19, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

• Support 2nd, but I'd say the safest bet is to create a disambiguation page at the basename, so we can assess the from there whether there's a primary topic between the obsolete scientific theory (Caloric theory), the brand Caloric, the neurological test (Caloric reflex test), and the unit of energy (Calorie), instead of doing an instant primary topic swap. Paintspot Infez (talk) 22:11, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

  Well, that plan would also make sense to me as an outcome.

  Technically I'm not saying the obsolete scientific theory is the ptopic for "caloric", but rather the hypothesized fluid itself, which is called caloric. While not a thing people are talking about on the street very often, it does have significant long-term significance. Although it might be beaten by the adjective form of the word calorie, depending on how we want to consider adjectives.

  I don't see any reason to wait to debate what the ptopic of caloric is until we have a dab. I guess maybe you want to gather all possible candidates there for a while. Fair enough. Dingolover6969 (talk) 10:46, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

• Support the second move but not the first. I disagree about the ptopic status, since various other things may be called "Caloric". See Energy and the hatnotes of Caloric for some others. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 22:11, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

  Well, of course there are various other things that are called "caloric". Are you arguing that there's no ptopic in this case, or that there is a ptopic and it's not caloric fluid? I guess either one would work, so you don't have to choose 🙂 Dingolover6969 (talk) 10:51, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Having looked at some of the things that erroneously used the current caloric link, I wanted to flag that food energy (ie caloric intake) and thermodynamic are also candidates for ptopic here. Dingolover6969 (talk) 10:39, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

• Support second move and creation of DAB at basename. Agreed that primary topic is non-obvious, with no shortage of candidates. If one clear leader does emerge, we can re-shuffle. -- Avocado (talk) 16:52, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose 1st, support 2nd, the brand has 214 views but the theory has 1,805, the reflex test has 1,125 and Calorie has 16,375[]. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:06, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
• Move Caloric → Caloric (brand) as proposed and Redirect Caloric → Calorie per WP:ADJECTIVE. A separate Caloric (disambiguation) page can be created if necessary but the primary topic for the adjective form caloric is Calorie. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 23:58, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

  And a {{Redirect}} hatnote at Calorie would be sufficient. Caloric (automobile) and Caloric (band) are the only two titles that are not partial title matches. In general, we do not create dab pages that consist of mostly PTMs nor do we need one in a WP:TWOOTHER situation where a hatnote does the job. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 00:02, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

  No. Caloric fluid (though I'd rather call it caloric (theoretical substance)) is also a potential primary topic, making a disambiguation necessary. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:38, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

  Feel free to make that redirect as well! Dingolover6969 (talk) 07:36, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

  It seems like the physiological test is also referred to as a caloric by its practitioners, if the wording choices of our wikipedia page are to be believed. Dingolover6969 (talk) 10:44, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

  This is in response to both of the replies above. I looked at Google Books and the vast majority of uses are the adjective form of calorie, as in caloric intake, caloric restriction, etc. About 10/50 results on the first 5 pages were not about calories, and they were roughly split between caloric tests in healthcare vs. caloric theory. Ngram confirms that the vast majority of uses refer to calories. Caloric intake has been the most common phrase to appear in books since circa 1940. A quick look at Google Scholar also shows a great many references to adjective form of the energy unit calorie. There are modern references to heat transfer like this but this does not invoke the discredited caloric theory. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 14:29, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

  This Ngram shows that caloric fluid and caloric theory have long been less common than caloric intake, caloric value, and caloric restriction. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 14:31, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

  "Caloric ____" is WP:PTM. We're talking about the word caloric alone. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:51, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

  Right, and it is most commonly used in reference to calories, which these findings demonstrate. This is the primary topic by usage (WP:PT1). —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 18:31, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

  Merriam-Webster also has a collection of example sentences that demonstrate current usage, always in a meaning related to the calorie. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 18:38, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

  Support Caloric dab page as second choice. Strong oppose moving Caloric theory to Caloric. Overall, I remain convinced that calorie is most likely the primary topic for caloric. But if not redirected to Calorie, then Caloric should be a disambiguation page. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 14:54, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

• Support I believe that, by longterm significance, "caloric fluid" is indeed the primary topic. While "caloric" can also be used to refer to calorie, odds are that one would simply type "calorie" if they were looking for the modern unit. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:51, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
• Support both per nom. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:22, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
• Support second, neutral on first. Srnec (talk) 01:17, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisting comment: There appears to be a clear consensus for the second move, and a rough consensus for disambiguation of the base page name. Relisting for clearer consensus with respect to the base page name. BD2412 T 00:19, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

• Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 13:40, 30 June 2026 (UTC)
• As nominator, support 2nd move but favor dab at basename. With the benefit of this conversation and additional time, I think it's actually probably more helpful for editors in practice for "caloric" to get the dab warning (God I hope editors are still getting that dab warning when they try to link a dab), so I change my !vote to Caloric to be a dab at the base name, despite being the OP who originally proposed moving Caloric theory there. Caloric fluid/Caloric theory is a WP:natural disambiguation and Caloric (fluid), which could be made, is a fine pipe link. I still support moving Caloric the brand to Caloric (brand). Caloric theory at Caloric is a close second, in that it would also be good but slightly sub-optimal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dingolover6969 (talk • contribs) 07:36, 2 July 2026 (UTC)
• Support as an improvement, but would prefer to just redirect caloric to calorie, which I'd bet is what most people typing that are ultimately searching for. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:13, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.