Gibbs energy=chem potential (not convinced)


by tim_lou
Tags: convinced, energychem, gibbs, potential
tim_lou
tim_lou is offline
#1
Mar3-07, 09:35 PM
P: 689
my thermal book gives a hand-waving argument saying the followings:
firstly, Gibbs energy, defined by:
[tex]G\equiv U+PV-TS[/tex]

is an extensive quantity (proportional to N), and also
[tex]\left (\frac{\partial G}{\partial N}\right ) _{T,P}=\mu[/tex]

so far so good, but then it says:

if P and T are held constant then [itex]\mu[/itex] is also constant, which implies whenever a particle is added to the system, G is increased by [itex]\mu[/itex].

Thus,
[tex]G=N\mu[/tex]

But why must [itex]\mu[/itex] be solely dependent on T and V??? why can't [itex]\mu[/itex] depend on.. let's say N? is there any algebraic prove for that?

edit: oh yeah I see... the book skips a very Very important reason of why it works!!!
since V, S and U are also extensive,
[tex]V\sim N[/tex]
[tex]S\sim N[/tex]
[tex]U\sim N[/tex]

Thus,
[tex]\left (\frac{\partial G}{\partial N}\right ) _{T,P}=\mu=
\frac{\partial U}{\partial N}+P\frac{\partial V}{\partial N}-T\frac{\partial S}{\partial N}[/tex]

and each of the three partial derivatives is independent of N since V, S and U are directly related to N...

don't you just hate it when books make some non-rigorous arguments, left out the important details and act as if the things are obvious and trivial!?!!
Phys.Org News Partner Physics news on Phys.org
Information storage for the next generation of plastic computers
Scientists capture ultrafast snapshots of light-driven superconductivity
Progress in the fight against quantum dissipation
StatMechGuy
StatMechGuy is offline
#2
Mar4-07, 02:40 PM
P: 223
But what they did is entirely correct. I can always rewrite the chemical potential as a function of other intensive/extensive variables because of the existence of equations of state.
quetzalcoatl9
quetzalcoatl9 is offline
#3
Mar4-07, 07:18 PM
P: 701
you can prove it rigorously, without reference to the macroscopic thermodynamics, by finding [tex]<N>\mu[/tex] in the grand canonical ensemble.

tim_lou
tim_lou is offline
#4
Mar5-07, 01:16 PM
P: 689

Gibbs energy=chem potential (not convinced)


really...? I'm interested... can you provide more details please? I would really love a rigorous argument on this problem.

so, how would you go from the definition of G and mu??
StatMechGuy
StatMechGuy is offline
#5
Mar5-07, 02:01 PM
P: 223
Quote Quote by quetzalcoatl9 View Post
you can prove it rigorously, without reference to the macroscopic thermodynamics, by finding [tex]<N>\mu[/tex] in the grand canonical ensemble.
I'm intrigued, since I've never seen this done before. I've always seen, starting from the microcanonical ensemble, a derivation that leads to something that we recognize as F or some such, and then that's the connection to thermodynamics.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Gibbs energy.....help...... Biology, Chemistry & Other Homework 0
Gibbs Free Energy Biology, Chemistry & Other Homework 2
gibbs free energy Advanced Physics Homework 3
Gibbs Free energy Introductory Physics Homework 2
gibbs free energy Classical Physics 2