“Moreover, general as the treatment is I think that there is the possibility that it is not so general in some respects as Willard Gibbs would have desired. [In] discussing equilibrium and displacements from one position of equilibrium to another position [Gibbs] laid great stress on the fact that one had to remain within the limits of stability. Now if one wishes to postulate the derivatives including the second derivatives in an absolutely definite quadratic form one doesn’t need to talk about the limits of stability because the definiteness of the quadratic form means that one has stability. I wonder whether you can’t make it clearer or can’t come nearer following the general line of ideas [that] Gibbs has given in his Equilibrium of Heterogeneous Substances, equation 133.”
“One of Samuelson's many novel contributions was that he generalized and applied mathematical methods developed for the study of thermodynamics to the field of economics. His inspiration for doing so came, in part, from his mentor, polymath Edwin Wilson who was a former Yale student of the founder of chemical thermodynamics, Willard Gibbs. Samuelson, therefore, is a successful example of interdisciplinarity, and he combined these ideas in his magnum opus Foundations of Economic Analysis (1947).”
Samuelson learned about Gibbs-Pareto based economic equilibrium models, in the 1930s at Harvard from either Lawrence Henderson, whose program he was in, and or Edwin Wilson, one of his dissertation mentors, from whose lectures he learned Le Chatelier's principle. |
“I was struck by a remark made by an old teacher of mine at Harvard, Edwin Bidwell Wilson. Wilson was the last student of J. Willard Gibbs' at Yale and had worked creatively in many fields of mathematics and physics; his advanced calculus was a standard text for decades; his was the definitive write-up of Gibbs' lectures on vectors; he wrote one of the earliest texts on aerodynamics; he was a friend of R. A. Fisher and an expert on mathematical statistics and demography; finally, he had become interested early in the work of Pareto and gave lectures in mathematical economics at Harvard. My earlier formulation of the inequality in Eq. 4:
owed much to Wilson's lectures on thermodynamics. In particular, I was struck by his statement that the fact that an increase in pressure is accompanied by a decrease in volume is not so much a theorem about a thermodynamic equilibrium system as it is a mathematical theorem about surfaces that are concave from below or about negative definite quadratic forms. Armed with this clue, I set out to make sense of the Le Chatelier principle.”
A photo of Samuelson, in his later years, in his office, in an article discussing how in 1938 he remaindered “utility” theory as obsolete. (Ѻ) |
“It is widely reported that at the end of Samuelson’s dissertation defense at Harvard, the great economist Joseph Schumpeter turned to Nobel Laureate, Wassily Leontief, and asked, ‘Well, Wassily, have we passed?’”
A signed copy of Samuelson’s 1947 Foundations of Economic Analysis, with its opening Willard Gibbs quote: “mathematics is a language”, from which he supposedly borrowed the minima and maxima differential methods for use in economic analysis. (Ѻ) |
“Little has been done to develop the principle [of entropy] as a foundation for the general theory of thermodynamic equilibrium, which may be reformulated as follows: for the equilibrium of any isolated system it is necessary and sufficient that in all possible variations of the state of the system which do not alter its energy, the variation [δ] of its entropy shall either vanish or be negative.”
“The formal mathematical analogy between classical thermodynamics and mathematic economic systems has now been explored. This does not warrant the commonly met attempt to find more exact analogies of physical magnitudes – such as entropy or energy – in the economic realm. Why should there be laws like the first or second laws of thermodynamics holding in the economic realm? Why should ‘utility’ be literally identified with entropy, energy, or anything else? Why should a failure to make such a successful identification lead anyone to overlook or deny the mathematical isomorphism that does exist between minimum systems that arise in different disciplines?”
Samuelson in Washington in 1962, with an angry look. |
“The sign of a half-baked speculator in the social sciences is his search for something in the social system that corresponds to the physicist's notion of entropy.”
“You can’t make a perpetual motion machine that will run by dropping a ball’s bouncing back to higher than its point of release. That’s a consequence of the first law of thermodynamics—which guarantees conservation (or constancy of the total energy). More subtle, but no less consequential for economics, is the second law of thermodynamics: it requires that the total entropy (or ‘disorder’) irreversibly increases, while the total of energy is remained constant.”
“As will become apparent, I have limited tolerance for the perpetual attempts to fabricate for economics concepts of ‘entropy’ imported from the physical sciences or constructed by analogy to Clausius-Boltzmann magnitudes.”
Volumes 1-5 of Samuelson's Collected Scientific Papers (Ѻ); see hmolscience power center genealogy. |
“The monthly mail still brings grandiose schemes to replace the dollar as a unit of value by energy or entropy units. Superficial knowledge of thermodynamics, brought into contact with ignorance of economics, cannot even in the presence of the catalyst of noble intentions beget stable equilibrium of useful of useful products. This is not a tautology, merely a finding of fifty-five years of reading the morning mail.”
“Samuelson won the Nobel Prize in economics in 1970, while a professor at MIT. I was an undergraduate engineering student at MIT from 1959 to 1963. To all students at MIT in all fields, there were to ‘gods’ who loomed over the rest of the faculty: the great mathematician, Norbert Wiener, and the economist, Paul Samuelson.”Quotes | By— William Barnett (2007) [16]
“The formal mathematical analogy between classicalthermodynamics and mathematical economic systems has nowbeen explored. This does not warrant the commonly metattempt to find more exact analogies of physical magnitudes—such as entropy or energy—in the economic realm. Whyshould there be laws like the first or second laws ofthermodynamics holding in the economic realm? Why should "utility'' be literally identified with entropy, energy, or anythingelse? Why should a failure to make such a successful identification lead anyone to overlook or deny the mathematicalisomorphism that does exist between minimum systems thatarise in different disciplines?”— Paul Samuelson (1960), "Publication"; cited by Jason Smith [21]
“As will become apparent, I have limited tolerance for the perpetual attempts to fabricate for economics concepts of ‘entropy’ imported from the physical sciences or constructed by analogy to Clausius-Boltzmann magnitudes. The monthly mail still brings grandiose schemes to replace the dollar as a unit of value by energy or entropy units. Superficial knowledge of thermodynamics, brought into contact with ignorance of economics, cannot even in the presence of the catalyst of noble intentions beget stable equilibrium of useful of useful products. This is not a tautology, merely a finding of fifty-five years of reading the morning mail.”— Paul Samuelson (1989), “Gibbs in Economics” (pg. 256) [5]