Register to reply

Gibbs energy=chem potential (not convinced)

by tim_lou
Tags: convinced, energychem, gibbs, potential
Share this thread:
Mar3-07, 09:35 PM
P: 688
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].


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]

[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
Optimum inertial self-propulsion design for snowman-like nanorobot
The Quantum Cheshire Cat: Can neutrons be located at a different place than their own spin?
A transistor-like amplifier for single photons
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.
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.

Mar5-07, 01:16 PM
P: 688
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??
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 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