[semi-extrinsic]

Onsager was a bastard with omitting details. He has a 1949 paper on packing of hard rods (and other anisometric particles), which is 4 pages long, but a colleague who went through the details of the derivation spent half a year and filled a ring binder with intermediate calculations.

[spekcular]

Damn.

I never actually learned this stuff. Is there a good textbook account of this isotropic-to-nematic transition that includes full details? Or is there still a gaping hole in the published literature?

In other words, did your colleague do this as a kind of history project, or because the details weren't available anywhere else?

[semi-extrinsic]

I don't think there are textbooks on this stuff, it is too much of a niche, you probably need to read journal papers. A place to start might be the classic "What is liquid?" review paper by Barker and Henderson:

https://link.aps.org/pdf/10.1103/RevModPhys.48.587?casa_toke...

... and then the classic review paper on liquid crystals by Stephen and Straley:

https://link.aps.org/pdf/10.1103/RevModPhys.46.617?casa_toke...

But I believe the "gaping hole" as you call it has been mostly filled by the recent work. You probably still need to spend some weeks to follow along though.

The motivation for my colleague was to develop the Onsager theory further, since Onsager only went to the second virial coefficient. They were able to go to higher-body contributions and get nice algebraic results for the equation of state, IIRC. I can probably dig up the DOI if you want to read it.

[spekcular]

Yes, I'd love to read it, if you have time to find the DOI. Thanks!

[semi-extrinsic]

Here you go:

http://doi.org/10.1080/00268970801926958

[spekcular]

Thanks!

[sva_]

I wonder if this is a consequence of people demanding more "rigor" nowadays?

[stjohnswarts]

Well with electronic form it is now quite trivial to include the derivation, so no real reason not to publish it or at least a detail set of steps so demanding more rigor seems fair.