Originally Posted by Juan R.
It appears that you have read books in equilibrium statistical thermodynamics or kinetics and are misunderstanding statistical in a broad sense with statistics of a population of molecules or atoms. It also appears that you believe that thermal temperature and kinetic temperature are the same that statistical temperature.
One can perfectly do statistics of a single molecule, atom, or nucleus, taking the different quantum states of that system like a "population".
|
Wouldn't this be a rather small population?
{No, I'm just a chemist who took the word of certain professors back in the day...}
The general formula for the entropy of a system is

where is the density matrix of the single molecule, atom, or nucleus and is the Boltzman constant.
|
What's

?
This is the first time I've seen this equation.
Of course, since I am a simple chemist, I've only seen something like:
It's this sort of understanding (or really this level of understanding) and this defintion of entropy that I am working with. Or really I am thinking along the lines of relating entropy and temperature via the
heat capacity of a given substance. These are all "macroscopic" terms in this line of thinking, of course.
But anyway, are you saying that perhaps the equation you have above is a quantum modification or a generalization of the old-school Boltzmann Principle?
One also know the energy of a single molecule, atom, or nucleus, therefore

|
Yeah, see that's what my problem here is.
I always thought of the Bolzmann constant as was a way to relate energy to temperature, especially since it's expressed in terms of J/K.
I guess here you are defining temperature as a
relation between entropy and total energy? In this case would the entropy be a component of this total energy? If that is indeed what you mean by

since it's vague to me what

you are talking about here.
Any time I see this sort of thing (where temperature is in an equation that can apply to a single particle) I assume that the temperature in the equation is the "ambient temperature" or the temperature of the surroundings. For example, when someone talks about the temerature dependence of some molecular or lattice vibration, they don't mean the temperature of the single vibration or the temperature of the single molecule, but the temperature of the surrounding medium. But, I'm probably wrong in this way of looking at things.
I think that you error is in believing that entropy is a macroscopic quantity applicable only to a great number of molecules, what is not true.
|
Well, I guess I wasn't thinking in terms of entropy so much.
I was really looking at a temperature as an average and nothing more.
I guess you are saying effectively the same thing as Nicky.
That since there is an ensemble of energy states within a single molecule at a given instant, whether they are different manifestations (ie, vibrations, rotations, electronic states, etc), that these energies can all be averaged into a temperature?
So, in the old-school Boltzmann principle, the value for

could be very small, but as long as it's more than 1, all is good?
From above definition of temperature one can obtain kinetic temperature (average of kinetic motion) and thermal temperature (internal energy by unit of entropy for an Avogadro number of molecules) like special cases.
|
So you are saying that in the fullerene beam paper, when they use the term "molecular temperature", the authors are perhaps referring to the kinetic temperature of single fullerene molecules?
For instance when they say:
Originally Posted by Arndt et al.
We change the internal temperature
of the molecules in a controlled way before they enter a
near-field interferometer, and observe the corresponding
reduction of the interference contrast.
|
that this is what they mean?
It's almost like they wanted to say internal energy, but said temperature instead.
Or here:
Decoherence of the fullerene matter waves can be induced by heating the molecules with multiple laser beams (514.5 nm, 40 µm waist radius, 0 − 10 W) before they enter the interferometer. The resulting molecular temperature can be assessed by detecting the heating dependent fraction of fullerene ions using the electron multiplier D1 over the heating stage.
|
Do you think they could have used the term "beam temperature" and it would have just meant the same thing?
But then they MUST mean the temperature of single fullerenes here:
The laser heating increases the molecular temperature by 140 K per absorbed photon. We calculate that they reach up to 5000 K for very short times, but the re-emission of thermal photons is so efficient that even the hottest molecules are cooled to below∼ 3000 K when they enter the interferometer 7.2 cm behind the heating stage.
|
But they then sort of talk about the way they calculated these temperatures:
FIG. 3: Spectral photon emission rate R of C70 molecules, as used for the calculation of thermal decoherence. We use the published [25] absorption cross-section for (S0 !S1) and a heat capacity of CV = 202kB. The fall-off to short wavelengths is determined by the limited internal energy of the molecules, while the decrease at long wavelengths is due to the lack of accessible radiative transitions at energies below 1.5 eV. The figure shows that in the absence of cooling a single molecule at 2500 K travelling at 190 m s−1 (that is, with a transit time of 4 ms through the interferometer) would emit an integrated number of three visible photons. This is sufficient to determine the path of the molecule if the emission occurs close to the second grating.
|
Is that heat capacity they are talking about a "molecular heat capacity"?
I'm convinced now, of course, that these folks are talking about the temperature of single fullerene molecules, but am I being too presumptuous in thinking that "molecular temperature" (or atomic or nuclear) cannot mean the same thing as traditional bulk temperature? They do talk later about molecular analogs to blackbody radiation, thermionic emission, and evaporative cooling, and it is obvious to me how these analogies are drawn, so the temperature they speak of is merely a molecular analog and not the same thing as a bulk temperature.
Is it like thermal entropy vs. informational entropy where people use the same word to actually mean two different (but maybe analogous) things?