Alternative definitions of energy?

[Andrew Mason]

Heat transfer exists even when molecular forces are not defined. Moreover, you seem to believe that molecules are tiny iron balls moving in straight lines, but all this picture is rather inaccurate.

So you do not agree with the model on which the kinetic theory of gases is based? It is not a perfect model and certainly does not describe what occurs at the sub atomic level in molecular collisions, but it seems to provide a pretty accurate model for macroscopic behaviour of gases.

I already explained you that W in the first law of thermodynamics is work, and what is the difference with the different concept of useful work (e.g. measured by A≠W).

I don't know if there is a language problem here but I don't understand what this means. Are you saying the W in the first law of thermodynamics means something other than useful/macroscopic work? If so, what is it? What is A?

I gave a specific section of a standard textbook devoted to this topic. Moreover work W in thermodynamics is not a synonym for mechanical work W_mech.

It need not be "mechanical" as opposed to, say, electromagnetic. But it must be macroscopic work or useful work.

You claimed that you had studied thermodynamics, but you show otherwise. In fact, I already explained you that heat is not a state function and thus your ΔQ makes no sense.

"My" ΔQ = ΔU + W as in the first law. When did I say ΔQ was a state function? ΔU is a state function but NEITHER ΔQ nor W relates to the state of a system. Those terms relate to processes in moving between states.

AM

 

[juanrga]

Even going back and re-reading your #42 I don't see it. What part of #42 do you believe shows how to apply the Hamiltonian definition of energy to a spring pushing a mass horizontally across a surface with friction? And can you be more explicit about the connection? It is not at all apparent to me.

Wait a moment. Your original question was:

I know how to apply Andrew Mason's definition to a spring pushing a mass horizontally across a surface with friction, but I don't know how to apply your definition.

In my response to that, I said you how his definition of classical mechanical work W_mech is a special case derived from the general definition of work W given by me:

Tr{dH ρ} → Tr {(∂H/∂r)dr ρ} → - Tr {Fdr ρ}

which for a pure state gives the classical mechanical (Fdr)_mech.

Therefore, if classical mechanical work is derived from the general definition of work W and you already know how to apply the classical mechanical work expression your original question would be solved.

Now you are asking me something related but different. You are asking me to obtain the specific value of a friction force from the above Trace. Sorry but I cannot give you an analytic solution here because its is not a pure state situation. However, its value is obtained solving the trace by computational methods for a given ρ. You can find specific algorithms to obtain friction, from a simple Coulomb model, in the literature {*}.

Does such a system even have a Hamiltonian and does taking the trace give the correct expression for the energy?

Precisely this is one of the advantages of my definition of energy over other definitions given here (as the definition using Lagrangians and Noether theorem).

My definition of energy is (so far as I know) valid everywhere, including dissipative systems for the which the Lagrangian does not exist (read #37 and the online reference therein).

{*} Already Feynman (Lectures on Physics, Vol 1.) remarks how friction is caused by the gradients of numerous electrostatic potentials between the atoms.

 

[juanrga]

Heat transfer exists even when molecular forces are not defined. Moreover, you seem to believe that molecules are tiny iron balls moving in straight lines, but all this picture is rather inaccurate.

So you do not agree with the model on which the kinetic theory of gases is based? It is not a perfect model and certainly does not describe what occurs at the sub atomic level in molecular collisions, but it seems to provide a pretty accurate model for macroscopic behaviour of gases.

Evidently, nowhere in the above quote I wrote that I disagree with the kinetic theory of gases. Also, evidently, molecules are not tiny iron balls moving in straight lines. Kinetic theory (specially quantum kinetic theory) does not say the contrary, neither kinetic theory says that heat is always obtained from some inexistent mechanical classical work.

I already explained you that W in the first law of thermodynamics is work, and what is the difference with the different concept of useful work (e.g. measured by A≠W).

I don't know if there is a language problem here but I don't understand what this means. Are you saying the W in the first law of thermodynamics means something other than useful/macroscopic work? If so, what is it? What is A?
It need not be "mechanical" as opposed to, say, electromagnetic. But it must be macroscopic work or useful work.

Apart from ignoring what I wrote in that quote, you also deleted an important part of my previous message. The deleted part was:

I gave a specific section of a standard textbook devoted to this topic. Moreover work W in thermodynamics is not a synonym for mechanical work W_mech.

"A" is standard thermodynamic notation and I already explained in previous posts when this thermodynamic potential gives a measure of useful work and when does not.

You claimed that you had studied thermodynamics, but you show otherwise. In fact, I already explained you that heat is not a state function and thus your ΔQ makes no sense.

"My" ΔQ = ΔU + W as in the first law. When did I say ΔQ was a state function? ΔU is a state function but NEITHER ΔQ nor W relates to the state of a system. Those terms relate to processes in moving between states.

The first law, for closed systems, is:

ΔU = Q + W

Heat is not a state function in thermodynamic space and thus your ΔQ has no meaning.

I will not correct again stuff corrected before two or three times. And I will not reply to stuff I never said.

 

[Dale]

Sorry but I cannot give you an analytic solution here because its is not a pure state situation.

I am fine with just the Hamiltonian which could then simply be solved numerically using Hamilton's equations etc.

My definition of energy is (so far as I know) valid everywhere, including dissipative systems for the which the Lagrangian does not exist (read #37 and the online reference therein).

This is essentially what I am getting at. It has been a long time since my physics courses, but I remember the professor saying that the Lagrangian formalism does not work for systems with friction (which you seem to agree with), and later saying that the Hamiltonian formalisim is just a way to turn the second-order differential equations into a system of first-order differential equations.

So, my impression has always been that the Hamiltonian formalism does not work for systems with friction either (which you seem to disagree with). We certainly never covered such systems using the Hamiltonian approach. I am open to corretion on this point.

{*} Already Feynman (Lectures on Physics, Vol 1.) remarks how friction is caused by the gradients of numerous electrostatic potentials between the atoms.

I looked in the the online reference of post 37, your statements in post 42, and in Feynman's Lectures on Physics, Vol 1 I searched for every occurence of "friction". None of those show the Hamiltonian for a simple system with friction.

You claim that your definition is more general, but it only covers situations for which the Hamiltonian formalism applies. So, based on my instruction many years ago and on the information presented here, I am skeptical that it applies to a spring pushing a mass horizontally across a surface with friction.

 

[Andrew Mason]

The first law, for closed systems, is:

ΔU = Q + W

That is one way to write it, W being the work done ON the system and Q being the NET heat flow INTO the system. This is equivalent to ΔQ = ΔU + W where W is the work done BY the system and ΔQ is the difference between the heat flow INTO the system and the heat flow OUT OF the system ie. the NET heat flow INTO the system.

Heat is not a state function in thermodynamic space and thus your ΔQ has no meaning.

It is standard terminology. It is confusing to use just Q when dealing with heat flows into and out of a system - in a cycle involving several different processes (such as a heat engine): ΔQ = Qh - Qc, for example. You would write Q = Qh-Qc. But most thermodynamic texts refer to this as ΔQ. You seem to be interpreting that as a state function for some reason.

AM

 

[juanrga]

I am fine with just the Hamiltonian which could then simply be solved numerically using Hamilton's equations etc.

As I am saying in the part that you quote, the system is not in a pure state; i.e.; the Hamilton equations do not describe its dynamics.

This is essentially what I am getting at. It has been a long time since my physics courses, but I remember the professor saying that the Lagrangian formalism does not work for systems with friction (which you seem to agree with), and later saying that the Hamiltonian formalisim is just a way to turn the second-order differential equations into a system of first-order differential equations.

So, my impression has always been that the Hamiltonian formalism does not work for systems with friction either (which you seem to disagree with). We certainly never covered such systems using the Hamiltonian approach. I am open to corretion on this point.

The dynamics of any system is given by the equation

∂ρ/∂t = L_Hρ + Dρ (1)

where L_H is the Liouvillian of the system L_H=L_H(H) and D the Dissipator, which is also a function of the Hamiltonian {*}. When there is not dissipation the equation reduces to the time symmetric equation

∂ρ/∂t = L_Hρ

and for pure states this reduces to the set of equations

dq/dt = ∂H/∂p

dp/dt = -∂H/∂t

for H=H(q,p)=E

This set of equations is what you mean by the «Hamiltonian formalism».

Of course, we can derive the Lagrangian formalism from the Hamiltonian formalism, using the Legendre transformation L(q,v) = pv - H(q,p)

Both the Hamiltonian and Lagrangian formalisms of classical mechanics are only valid for time-reversible systems in pure states. But the Hamiltonian H, the equation (1) and the expression <E> = Tr{Hρ} are much more general.

I looked in the the online reference of post 37, your statements in post 42, and in Feynman's Lectures on Physics, Vol 1 I searched for every occurence of "friction". None of those show the Hamiltonian for a simple system with friction.

As said friction is caused by the gradients of numerous electrostatic potentials between the atoms. The usual non-relativistic Hamiltonian is

H = Ʃ_i p_i/2m_i + Ʃ_iƩ_j e_ie_j/4πε₀R_ij

The last part is the Coulomb potential energy that Feynman alludes to.

This Hamiltonian can be then used (very often via further simplifications {**}) to obtain surface structures (static friction), harmonic vibrations, chemical bonds associated with kinetic friction... using different computational models.

You claim that your definition is more general, but it only covers situations for which the Hamiltonian formalism applies. So, based on my instruction many years ago and on the information presented here, I am skeptical that it applies to a spring pushing a mass horizontally across a surface with friction.

You are completely wrong. You seem to confound the equation (1) with the approximated Hamilton equations and you seem to confound the expression <E> = Tr{Hρ} with the approximated expression E = H(q,p)

{*} It is very very complex and I prefer do not to write D in explicit form.

{**} E.g. BO approximation for nuclei, approx computational model for obtaining the electronic PES, harmonic approximations in that surface, approx derivation of bond energies, distances and frequencies, canonical or some other equilibrium approx. for energy levels distribution, neglect of noise effects, neglect of fourth and higher order terms L'_H in the dissipation D, time-coarse-graining by neglect of memory effects (t_mem<<t) in the resulting kernel of D...

 

[juanrga]

That is one way to write it, W being the work done ON the system and Q being the NET heat flow INTO the system. This is equivalent to ΔQ = ΔU + W where W is the work done BY the system and ΔQ is the difference between the heat flow INTO the system and the heat flow OUT OF the system ie. the NET heat flow INTO the system.
It is standard terminology. It is confusing to use just Q when dealing with heat flows into and out of a system - in a cycle involving several different processes (such as a heat engine): ΔQ = Qh - Qc, for example. You would write Q = Qh-Qc. But most thermodynamic texts refer to this as ΔQ. You seem to be interpreting that as a state function for some reason.

AM

As said I will ignore errors corrected before as well as stuff that I have not said.

About the remaining stuff, Q in the first law ΔU = Q + W, denotes heat, not heat flux.

The recommended (IUPAP, ISO, IUPAC) notation for heat flow is \Phi. And the recommended notation for heat flux density is J_q. Of course J_q \neq \Phi \neq Q.

 

[Andrew Mason]

About the remaining stuff, Q in the first law ΔU = Q + W, denotes heat, not heat flux.

You seem to be confusing heat flux with heat flow. They are very different. Perhaps this is a language problem as English does not appear to be your first language.

What is your definition of heat? Q refers to thermal energy transfer and, for historical reasons, is usually referred to as "heat flow" not "heat". \dot Q refers to heat flow per unit time, (ie thermal energy transferred per unit time). "Heat" by itself is a term that is generally avoided in thermodynamics because it can have a variety of meanings.

AM

 

[juanrga]

You seem to be confusing heat flux with heat flow. They are very different. Perhaps this is a language problem as English does not appear to be your first language.

What is your definition of heat? Q refers to thermal energy transfer and, for historical reasons, is usually referred to as "heat flow" not "heat". \dot Q refers to heat flow per unit time, (ie thermal energy transferred per unit time). "Heat" by itself is a term that is generally avoided in thermodynamics because it can have a variety of meanings.
AM

Ignoring stuff corrected before, I will add that IUPAP, ISO, IUPAC, define the heat flux as \dot{Q}, which is not the same than heat, evidently.

 

[kmarinas86]

About the remaining stuff, Q in the first law ΔU = Q + W, denotes heat, not heat flux.

You seem to be confusing heat flux with heat flow. They are very different. Perhaps this is a language problem as English does not appear to be your first language.

What is your definition of heat? Q refers to thermal energy transfer and, for historical reasons, is usually referred to as "heat flow" not "heat". \dot Q refers to heat flow per unit time, (ie thermal energy transferred per unit time). "Heat" by itself is a term that is generally avoided in thermodynamics because it can have a variety of meanings.

AM

Juanrga is not wrong here. In thermodynamics, "heat" is not defined as a state quantity. Heat is a process quantity. Blame that on the horrendous nomenclature adopted by thermal physics. For a state quantity that is similar to what a normal person calls "heat" or "BTUs", we have the a term "thermal energy" instead. In physics, the process quantity Q is the heat, which is a transfer of thermal energy, not a transfer of heat, but in engineering, this quantity is called heat transfer. Heat therefore is a flow of energy, not the energy itself. I have some problems with this nomenclature, as I believe that heat should be synonymous thermal energy, but that is not how it is done in our sciences. In the mathematical physics sense, you cannot "store" heat (i.e. Heat (a mathematician's view)=Heat flow (a layman's view)=Heat transfer (a thermal engineer's view)). Saying that Q is the "heat transfer" or "heat flow" rather than "heat" is still misleading because: 1) the word heat (a noun or verb, but never an adjective) is modifying the following noun in both of these terms as if "heat" was what is flowing or transferring, in the layman sense of the term, and 2) neither of these two terms stand for the thing being transported but rather they refer to the measure of how much was transported, and it is not even an "accumulation of heat". But again, that is how it is done. \dot Q is the rate of heat transfer at an instant of time. Similarly, heat flux is the is rate of heat transfer at an instant of time per area.

 

[kmarinas86]

The recommended (IUPAP, ISO, IUPAC) notation for heat flow is \Phi. And the recommended notation for heat flux density is J_q. Of course J_q \neq \Phi \neq Q.

Ignoring stuff corrected before, I will add that IUPAP, ISO, IUPAC, define the heat flux as \dot{Q}, which is not the same than heat, evidently.

That's completely backwards.

\dot{Q} is symbol for heat transfer rate. \overrightarrow{\phi_q} is the symbol for heat flux.

 

[Dale]

{*} It is very very complex and I prefer do not to write D in explicit form.

That is fine. I understand that answering such questions is often much more effort than it is worth, and I don't want to push you to do more work than you feel the topic merits.

However, I hope you understand that I will have to remain slightly skeptical (though less certain than before) that your definition of energy is, in fact, more general. I have never seen Hamiltonians applied to friction, and from what you say here it seems to be needlessly complicated even for simple systems. If nothing else, this shows that in some cases there is a definite computational value in the "introductory" definition.

In any case, regardless of whether or not it is more general, your preferred definition is certainly a good definition and it reduces to the "introductory" definition in situations where they both apply.

 

[bbbeard]

As said I will ignore errors corrected before as well as stuff that I have not said.

About the remaining stuff, Q in the first law ΔU = Q + W, denotes heat, not heat flux.

The recommended (IUPAP, ISO, IUPAC) notation for heat flow is \Phi. And the recommended notation for heat flux density is J_q. Of course J_q \neq \Phi \neq Q.

Do you actually know anyone who pays attention to the IUPAP guidelines? I mean, they're nice folks and all, but in most fields of physics, it's more important to follow the conventions in the literature of the field than the recommendations of some folks who have spent a little too much time in the company of chemists, if you know what I mean.

For example, IUPAP recommends using the term "enplenthy" for the amount-of-substance-usually-just-called-number-of-moles. Do you know anyone who uses this terminology? Along these lines, IUPAP discourages the use of "molar volume" and instead prefers "enplenthic volume". There are a lot of idiosyncratic recommendations in the IUPAP guidelines. Do you know anyone who uses "L" for Avogadro's number?

I tend to follow the advice of Howard Georgi, which is not to get too hung up on notation. You have to know what the symbols mean, but getting fussy about whether the speed of light in vacuum is c or c₀ (the IUPAP recommendation) is a waste of time. I've seen a lot of different ways to write the first law; I usually prefer the version with the slashed d's for heat and work inexact differentials, but that can sometimes be a typographic challenge. So sometimes I write

du = δq - δw

and let the δ stand in for slash-d. I'm okay with

ΔU = Q₁₂ - W₁₂

for a finite process between initial state 1 and final state 2, but the bare version ΔU = Q - W looks a little funny. But like I said, it's not worth it to get hung up on notation.

BBB

 

[bbbeard]

The dynamics of any system is given by the equation

∂ρ/∂t = L_Hρ + Dρ (1)

where L_H is the Liouvillian of the system L_H=L_H(H) and D the Dissipator, which is also a function of the Hamiltonian {*}.

Could you elaborate on this? It's not clear to me how the dissipator can be a "function" of the Hamiltonian (which is actually a functional) and still represent arbitrary forms of dissipation.

It seems to me that you are adding a term to the equations of motion to represent dissipation. Why in principle is this any different from inserting the Rayleigh dissipation function into the Euler-Lagrange equations of Lagrangian mechanics? I think it's a little silly to argue whether the Hamiltonian or Lagrangian is somehow more fundamental. I prefer the Lagrangian formulation of dynamics because it's more convenient for the work I do, but your mileage may vary. And Noether's theorem provides a powerful, intuitively appealing paradigm that resides naturally in the Lagrangian formulation -- but now I'm arguing aesthetics.

I do have to say that I've never been satisfied with the glibness of "energy is the ability to do work" because the grammar seems faulty to me -- "I have the ability to do work -- am I energy?"

BBB

 

[juanrga]

The recommended (IUPAP, ISO, IUPAC) notation for heat flow is \Phi. And the recommended notation for heat flux density is J_q. Of course J_q \neq \Phi \neq Q.

\dot{Q} is symbol for heat transfer rate. \overrightarrow{\phi_q} is the symbol for heat flux.

The IUPAP,ISO,IUPAC definition for heat flux is \Phi \equiv \dot{Q}. Another recommended name for heat flux is thermal power.

Maybe the problem here is that both of you are not aware of the last international standards and official recommendations about those topics.

 

[juanrga]

Juanrga is not wrong here. In thermodynamics, "heat" is not defined as a state quantity. Heat is a process quantity. Blame that on the horrendous nomenclature adopted by thermal physics. For a state quantity that is similar to what a normal person calls "heat" or "BTUs", we have the a term "thermal energy" instead. In physics, the process quantity Q is the heat, which is a transfer of thermal energy, not a transfer of heat, but in engineering, this quantity is called heat transfer. Heat therefore is a flow of energy, not the energy itself. I have some problems with this nomenclature, as I believe that heat should be synonymous thermal energy, but that is not how it is done in our sciences. In the mathematical physics sense, you cannot "store" heat (i.e. Heat (a mathematician's view)=Heat flow (a layman's view)=Heat transfer (a thermal engineer's view)). Saying that Q is the "heat transfer" or "heat flow" rather than "heat" is still misleading because: 1) the word heat (a noun or verb, but never an adjective) is modifying the following noun in both of these terms as if "heat" was what is flowing or transferring, in the layman sense of the term, and 2) neither of these two terms stand for the thing being transported but rather they refer to the measure of how much was transported, and it is not even an "accumulation of heat". But again, that is how it is done. \dot Q is the rate of heat transfer at an instant of time. Similarly, heat flux is the is rate of heat transfer at an instant of time per area.

He confounds heat with heat flux and you confound heat flux with heat flux density.

 

[juanrga]

That is fine. I understand that answering such questions is often much more effort than it is worth, and I don't want to push you to do more work than you feel the topic merits.

Well, I have read a paper by Radu Balescu apologizing because the dissipator is an extremely complex object and cannot be written in concise analytic form, and then denoting it with a mere symbol. Precisely he is well-known for developing a graphical method (think of something much more complicated than Feynman diagrams) for obtaining the different terms involved in the dissipation term.

However, I hope you understand that I will have to remain slightly skeptical (though less certain than before) that your definition of energy is, in fact, more general. I have never seen Hamiltonians applied to friction, and from what you say here it seems to be needlessly complicated even for simple systems. If nothing else, this shows that in some cases there is a definite computational value in the "introductory" definition.

In any case, regardless of whether or not it is more general, your preferred definition is certainly a good definition and it reduces to the "introductory" definition in situations where they both apply.

I had no problem with the «"introductory" definition», and indeed I remarked that would be a good definition for basic courses of physics {*}. I had problem only when someone pretended that the introductory definition (obtained from a first course in classical mechanics) was a general definition valid elsewhere.

{*} That introductory textbooks would not be taken as gospel is is not characteristic of physics. In elementary textbooks in chemistry we are said that water is just H2O, but in more advanced courses chemists learn that water is much more than H2O.

 

[juanrga]

Could you elaborate on this? It's not clear to me how the dissipator can be a "function" of the Hamiltonian (which is actually a functional) and still represent arbitrary forms of dissipation.

It seems to me that you are adding a term to the equations of motion to represent dissipation. Why in principle is this any different from inserting the Rayleigh dissipation function into the Euler-Lagrange equations of Lagrangian mechanics? I think it's a little silly to argue whether the Hamiltonian or Lagrangian is somehow more fundamental. I prefer the Lagrangian formulation of dynamics because it's more convenient for the work I do, but your mileage may vary. And Noether's theorem provides a powerful, intuitively appealing paradigm that resides naturally in the Lagrangian formulation -- but now I'm arguing aesthetics.

I do have to say that I've never been satisfied with the glibness of "energy is the ability to do work" because the grammar seems faulty to me -- "I have the ability to do work -- am I energy?"

BBB

Yes, D is a function of the Hamiltonian, just as the non-dissipative part L_H is function as well; the difference is that D is a very very complicated function (as said before). Therefore I prefer not to write it in explicit form here.

As also explained in #56, the Lagrangian formulation (including the Euler Lagrange equations) can be derived after applying approximations on the general equation of motion; the approximations include the neglect of dissipation. You can try to add, by hand, some dissipative term to the final Euler Lagrange equations but the resulting theory will be totally inconsistent {**}.

{**} Recall the same online reference that you introduced in a previous post. Read the part where says you that the Lagrangian formalism does not work for systems with dissipation.

 

[kmarinas86]

Juanrga is not wrong here. In thermodynamics, "heat" is not defined as a state quantity. Heat is a process quantity. Blame that on the horrendous nomenclature adopted by thermal physics. For a state quantity that is similar to what a normal person calls "heat" or "BTUs", we have the a term "thermal energy" instead. In physics, the process quantity Q is the heat, which is a transfer of thermal energy, not a transfer of heat, but in engineering, this quantity is called heat transfer. Heat therefore is a flow of energy, not the energy itself. I have some problems with this nomenclature, as I believe that heat should be synonymous thermal energy, but that is not how it is done in our sciences. In the mathematical physics sense, you cannot "store" heat (i.e. Heat (a mathematician's view)=Heat flow (a layman's view)=Heat transfer (a thermal engineer's view)). Saying that Q is the "heat transfer" or "heat flow" rather than "heat" is still misleading because: 1) the word heat (a noun or verb, but never an adjective) is modifying the following noun in both of these terms as if "heat" was what is flowing or transferring, in the layman sense of the term, and 2) neither of these two terms stand for the thing being transported but rather they refer to the measure of how much was transported, and it is not even an "accumulation of heat". But again, that is how it is done. \dot Q is the rate of heat transfer at an instant of time. Similarly, heat flux is the is rate of heat transfer at an instant of time per area.

He confounds heat with heat flux and you confound heat flux with heat flux density.

The horrendous nomenclature rears its ugly head again.

In thermodynamics, heat flux=heat flux density. Yet in electrodynamics, magnetic flux/area=magnetic flux density, which makes more sense.

http://www.google.com/search?q=heat+flux

#
Heat flux - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_flux Cached - Similar
You +1'd this publicly. Undo
Heat flux or thermal flux is the rate of heat energy transfer through a given surface. The SI derived unit of heat rate is joule per second, or watt. Heat flux is the ...
Heat flux sensor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_flux_sensor
A heat flux sensor is a transducer that generates an ...

Critical heat flux
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_heat_flux
Critical heat flux describes the thermal limit of a ...
More results from wikipedia.org »
#
Heat Flux Thermodynamics - Engineers Edge
http://www.engineersedge.com/thermodynamics/heat_flux.htm Similar
You +1'd this publicly. Undo
Sometimes it is important to determine the heat transfer rate per unit area, or heat flux, which has the symbol Q" . Units for heat flux are Btu/hr-ft2. The heat flux ...
#
[PDF]
Heat flux 1. Measurement of heat flux
http://nptel.iitm.ac.in/courses/IIT-MADRAS/Mechanical.../pdf/3_1.pdf Similar
You +1'd this publicly. Undo
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View
Heat flux is defined as the amount of heat transferred per unit area per unit time from or to a surface. ... direction of heat flux or parallel to the direction of heat flux. ...
#
Furnace Improvements
www.heatflux.com/ Similar
You +1'd this publicly. Undo
Jan 18, 2011 – FIS Training Programs “I wish I had this course a year ago; Discussion on levels of Burner NOx capabilities, information on vendor products, ...
#
Heat Flux
http://www.tpub.com/content/doe/h1012v2/css/h1012v2_25.htm Cached - Similar
You +1'd this publicly. Undo
Common units for heat Q transfer rate is Btu/hr. Sometimes it is important to determine the heat transfer rate per unit area, or heat flux, which has the symbol . ...
#
Welcome to Hukseflux - Thermal Science - Heat Flux Measurement
http://www.hukseflux.com › thermal science Cached - Similar
You +1'd this publicly. Undo
The Hukseflux Thermal Science Homepage. Hukseflux specialises in the design of thermal sensors for the measurement of heat flux, thermal gradients and ...
#
heat flux sensors vatell
http://www.vatell.com/articles.htm Cached - Similar
You +1'd this publicly. Undo
A number of articles describing heat flux measurement and its practical applications.
#
7(j) Global Heat Balance: Introduction to Heat Fluxes
http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/7j.html Cached - Similar
You +1'd this publicly. Undo
May 7, 2009 – Global Heat Balance: Introduction to Heat Fluxes ... Sensible heat flux is the process where heat energy is transferred from the Earth's surface ...
#
Heat Flux Density Conversion - FREE Unit Converter
http://www.unitconversion.org/unit_converter/heat-flux-density.html Cached - Similar
You +1'd this publicly. Undo
perform conversions between Heat Flux Density units.

http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=heat+flux

1.
Heat flux - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Heat flux or thermal flux is the rate of heat energy transfer through a given surface. The SI derived unit of heat rate is joule per second, or watt. Heat flux is the ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_flux - Cached
More results from en.wikipedia.org »
2
Heat flux sensor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
* Usage|
* Properties|
* Error sources|
* See also
A heat flux sensor is a transducer that generates an electrical signal proportional to the total heat rate applied to the surface of the sensor. The measured heat ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_flux_sensor
3
Heat flux: Facts, Discussion Forum, and Encyclopedia Article
Heat flux or thermal flux is the rate of heat energy. transfer through a given surface. The SI derived unit of heat rate is joule per second, or watt.
http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Heat_flux - Cached
More results from absoluteastronomy.com »
4
How to Calculate Heat Flux | eHow.com
Heat flux, or heat transfer per rate unit area, is a useful quantity in applications such as determining the transfer of energy from a fuel plate to working fluid ...
http://www.ehow.com/how_6494497_calculate-heat-flux.html - Cached
More results from ehow.com »
5
heat flux: Definition from Answers.com
The amount of heat transferred across a surface of unit area in a unit time. Also known as thermal flux.
http://www.answers.com/topic/heat-flux - Cached
More results from answers.com »
6
Heat Flux Thermodynamics - Engineers Edge
The rate at which heat is transferred is represented by the symbol Q. Common units for heat transfer rate is Btu/hr. Sometimes it is important to determine the heat ...
http://www.engineersedge.com/thermodynamics/heat_flux.htm
7
Heat Flux - Repair and Maintenance Manuals - Integrated ...
Heat Transfer HEAT TRANSFER TERMINOLOGY Heat Flux The rate at which heat is transferred is represented by the symbol . Common units for heat Q transfer rate is Btu/hr.
http://www.tpub.com/content/doe/h1012v2/css/h1012v2_25.htm - Cached
8
What Is Solar Heat Flux? | eHow.com
Heat flux is the distribution of energy across the surface of an object. Solar heat flux may refer to the the distribution of the sun's energy across the face of the ...
http://www.ehow.com/facts_6777836_solar-heat-flux_.html - Cached
9
Heat Flux, Solar Radiation and Thermal Conductivity: Welcome ...
Pyranometers, heat flux sensors, net radiometers, Hukseflux specializes in the design of thermal sensors for the measurement of heat flux and thermal conductivity.
http://www.hukseflux.com - Cached
10
Heat Flux - Scribd
Thomas E. Diller. "Heat Flux." Copyright 2000 CRC Press LLC. <http://www.engnetbase.com>. [/PLAIN] Heat Flux 34.1 34.2 34.3 34.4 34.5 34.6 34.7 Heat Transfer Fundamentals ...
http://www.scribd.com/doc/6938941/Heat-Flux - Cached
More results from scribd.com »

http://msxml.excite.com/info.xcite.psp/search/web?q=heat+flux

Heat flux - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_flux
• Google, Yahoo! Search, Bing
Heat flux or thermal flux is the rate of heat energy transfer through a given surface . The SI derived unit of heat rate is joule per second, or watt. Heat flux is the ...
Heat Flux Thermodynamics - Engineers Edge
http://www.engineersedge.com/thermodynamics/heat_flux.htm
• Google, Yahoo! Search, Bing
Sometimes it is important to determine the heat transfer rate per unit area, or heat flux, which has the symbol Q" . Units for heat flux are Btu/hr-ft2. The heat flux ...
Heat flux sensor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_flux_sensor
• Yahoo! Search, Bing
A heat flux sensor is a transducer that generates an electrical signal proportional to the total heat rate applied to the surface of the sensor. The measured heat ...
Heat flux: Facts, Discussion Forum, and Encyclopedia Article
http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Heat_flux
• Yahoo! Search, Bing
Heat flux or thermal flux is the rate of heat energy. transfer through a given surface. The SI derived unit of heat rate is joule per second, or watt.
How to Calculate Heat Flux | eHow.com
http://www.ehow.com/how_6494497_calculate-heat-flux.html
• Yahoo! Search, Bing
Heat flux, or heat transfer per rate unit area, is a useful quantity in applications such as determining the transfer of energy from a fuel plate to working fluid ...
Heat flux 1. Measurement of heat flux
http://nptel.iitm.ac.in/…chanical_Measurements_Metrology/pdf/3_1.pdf
• Google
Heat flux is defined as the amount of heat transferred per unit area per unit time from or to a surface. ... direction of heat flux or parallel to the direction of heat flux. ...
heat flux: Definition from Answers.com
http://www.answers.com/topic/heat-flux
• Yahoo! Search, Bing
The amount of heat transferred across a surface of unit area in a unit time. Also known as thermal flux.
Furnace Improvements
http://www.heatflux.com/
• Google
Jan 18, 2011 ... FIS Training Programs “I wish I had this course a year ago; Discussion on levels of Burner NOx capabilities, information on vendor products, ...
Heat Flux
http://www.tpub.com/content/doe/h1012v2/css/h1012v2_25.htm
• Google, Yahoo! Search
Common units for heat Q transfer rate is Btu/hr. Sometimes it is important to determine the heat transfer rate per unit area, or heat flux, which has the symbol . ...
Welcome to Hukseflux - Thermal Science - Heat Flux Measurement
http://www.hukseflux.com/thermalScience/heatFlux.html
• Google
The Hukseflux Thermal Science Homepage. Hukseflux specialises in the design of thermal sensors for the measurement of heat flux, thermal gradients and ...
What Is Solar Heat Flux? | eHow.com
http://www.ehow.com/facts_6777836_solar-heat-flux_.html
• Yahoo! Search, Bing
Heat flux is the distribution of energy across the surface of an object. Solar heat flux may refer to the the distribution of the sun's energy across the face of the ...
heat flux sensors vatell
http://www.vatell.com/articles.htm
• Google
A number of articles describing heat flux measurement and its practical applications.
Heat Flux Description - OAFlux Homepage
http://oaflux.whoi.edu/descriptionheatflux.html
• Bing
Net heat flux, Q net, is computed as: Q net = SW- LW - LH - SH. where SW denotes net downward shortwave radiation, LW net downward longwave radiation, LH latent heat ...
Heat Flux Density Conversion - FREE Unit Converter
http://www.unitconversion.org/unit_converter/heat-flux-density.html
• Google
perform conversions between Heat Flux Density units.
Heat Flux - Heat Transfer - Engineers Edge
http://www.engineersedge.com/heat_transfer/heat_flux.htm
• Bing
The rate at which heat is transferred is represented by the symbol Q. Common units for heat ˙Q transfer rate is Btu/hr.
Heat Flux - Scribd
http://www.scribd.com/doc/6938941/Heat-Flux
• Yahoo! Search, Bing
Thomas E. Diller. "Heat Flux." Copyright 2000 CRC Press LLC. <http://www.engnetbase.com>. [/PLAIN] Heat Flux 34.1 34.2 34.3 34.4 34.5 34.6 34.7 Heat Transfer Fundamentals ...
HeatFlux
http://oaflux.whoi.edu/heatflux.html
• Google
Ocean surface heat flux products. OAFlux latent heat flux 2010 mean, OAFlux sensible heat flux 2010 mean. 1958-2010 mean, 1958-2010 mean ...
Heat Flux, Solar Radiation and Thermal Conductivity: Welcome ...
http://www.hukseflux.com/
• Yahoo! Search
Pyranometers, heat flux sensors, net radiometers, Hukseflux specializes in the design of thermal sensors for the measurement of heat flux and thermal conductivity.
7(j) Global Heat Balance: Introduction to Heat Fluxes
http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/7j.html
• Google
May 7, 2009 ... Global Heat Balance: Introduction to Heat Fluxes ... Sensible heat flux is the process where heat energy is transferred from the Earth's surface ...

http://www.dogpile.com/info.dogpl.t2.7/search/web?fcoid=417&fcop=topnav&fpid=27&q=heat+flux&ql=

Heat flux - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_flux
•
Found on: Google, Yahoo! Search, Bing
Heat flux or thermal flux is the rate of heat energy transfer through a given surface . The SI derived unit of heat rate is joule per second, or watt. Heat flux is the ...
Heat Flux Thermodynamics - Engineers Edge
http://www.engineersedge.com/thermodynamics/heat_flux.htm
•
Found on: Google, Yahoo! Search, Bing
Sometimes it is important to determine the heat transfer rate per unit area, or heat flux, which has the symbol Q" . Units for heat flux are Btu/hr-ft2. The heat flux ...
Heat flux sensor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_flux_sensor
•
Found on: Yahoo! Search, Bing
A heat flux sensor is a transducer that generates an electrical signal proportional to the total heat rate applied to the surface of the sensor. The measured heat ...
Heat flux: Facts, Discussion Forum, and Encyclopedia Article
http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Heat_flux
•
Found on: Yahoo! Search, Bing
Heat flux or thermal flux is the rate of heat energy. transfer through a given surface. The SI derived unit of heat rate is joule per second, or watt.
Heat flux 1. Measurement of heat flux
http://nptel.iitm.ac.in/…easurements_Metrology/pdf/3_1.pdf
•
Found exclusively on: Google
Heat flux is defined as the amount of heat transferred per unit area per unit time from or to a surface. ... direction of heat flux or parallel to the direction of heat flux. ...
How to Calculate Heat Flux | eHow.com
http://www.ehow.com/how_6494497_calculate-heat-flux.html
•
Found on: Yahoo! Search, Bing
Heat flux, or heat transfer per rate unit area, is a useful quantity in applications such as determining the transfer of energy from a fuel plate to working fluid ...
Heat Flux
http://www.tpub.com/…ontent/doe/h1012v2/css/h1012v2_25.htm
•
Found on: Google, Yahoo! Search
Common units for heat Q transfer rate is Btu/hr. Sometimes it is important to determine the heat transfer rate per unit area, or heat flux, which has the symbol . ...
heat flux: Definition from Answers.com
http://www.answers.com/topic/heat-flux
•
Found on: Yahoo! Search, Bing
The amount of heat transferred across a surface of unit area in a unit time. Also known as thermal flux.
Furnace Improvements
http://www.heatflux.com/
•
Found exclusively on: Google
Jan 18, 2011 ... FIS Training Programs “I wish I had this course a year ago; Discussion on levels of Burner NOx capabilities, information on vendor products, ...
Welcome to Hukseflux - Thermal Science - Heat Flux Measurement
http://www.hukseflux.com/thermalScience/heatFlux.html
•
Found exclusively on: Google
The Hukseflux Thermal Science Homepage. Hukseflux specialises in the design of thermal sensors for the measurement of heat flux, thermal gradients and ...

http://www.ask.com/web?q=heat+flux

EFD FluxPlus™ Flux Paste - Specialized Paste Flux Available.
Request a Free White Paper.
http://www.nordsonefd.com/Solder
TRANE Air Conditioners - Sugar Lands Oldest Trane Comfort Specialist.
A/C Repair & Sales
http://www.jacksonairandheatinc.com
Heat Flux Thermodynamics - Engineers Edge
Sometimes it is important to determine the heat transfer rate per unit area, or heat flux, which has the symbol Q" . Units for heat flux are Btu/hr-ft2. The heat flux ...
http://www.engineersedge.com/thermodynamics/heat_flux.htm
Heat flux 1. Measurement of heat flux
Heat flux is defined as the amount of heat transferred per unit area per unit time from or to a surface. ... direction of heat flux or parallel to the direction of heat flux. ...
http://nptel.iitm.ac.in/courses/IIT-MADRAS/Mechanical_Measurem
Furnace Improvements
Jan 18, 2011 ... FIS Training Programs “I wish I had this course a year ago; Discussion on levels of Burner NOx capabilities, information on vendor products, ...
http://www.heatflux.com/
Heat Flux
Common units for heat Q transfer rate is Btu/hr. Sometimes it is important to determine the heat transfer rate per unit area, or heat flux, which has the symbol . ...
http://www.tpub.com/content/doe/h1012v2/css/h1012v2_25.htm
Welcome to Hukseflux - Thermal Science - Heat Flux Measurement
The Hukseflux Thermal Science Homepage. Hukseflux specialises in the design of thermal sensors for the measurement of heat flux, thermal gradients and ...
http://www.hukseflux.com/thermalScience/heatFlux.html
heat flux sensors vatell
A number of articles describing heat flux measurement and its practical applications.
http://www.vatell.com/articles.htm
compute heat/flux - LAMMPS WWW Site
Define a computation that calculates the heat flux vector based on contributions from atoms in the specified group. This can be used by itself to measure the heat ...
http://lammps.sandia.gov/doc/compute_heat_flux.html
Heat Flux Density Conversion - FREE Unit Converter
perform conversions between Heat Flux Density units.
http://www.unitconversion.org/unit_converter/heat-flux-density
7(j) Global Heat Balance: Introduction to Heat Fluxes
May 7, 2009 ... Global Heat Balance: Introduction to Heat Fluxes ... Sensible heat flux is the process where heat energy is transferred from the Earth's surface ...
http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/7j.html
Ads EFD FluxPlus™ Flux Paste - Specialized Paste Flux Available.
Request a Free White Paper.
http://www.nordsonefd.com/Solder
TRANE Air Conditioners - Sugar Lands Oldest Trane Comfort Specialist.
A/C Repair & Sales
http://www.jacksonairandheatinc.com

 

[kmarinas86]

The IUPAP,ISO,IUPAC definition for heat flux is \Phi \equiv \dot{Q}. Another recommended name for heat flux is thermal power.

Maybe the problem here is that both of you are not aware of the last international standards and official recommendations about those topics.

The real problem is that the IUPAP, ISO, and IUPAC do not have a dictatorship that forces these definitions to be the only ones taught (and available to learn) via publications. If they had that, we wouldn't have multiple definitions for the word heat flux like what we already have for heat, which helps no one to have, and the wrong people wouldn't be blamed for not being aware of this by others like yourself. Problem is, they don't have that kind of control. Though, it would actually be helpful if they did.

 

[juanrga]

Do you actually know anyone who pays attention to the IUPAP guidelines?

Several journals (including tops from the APS) follow IUPAP recommendations.

I mean, they're nice folks and all, but in most fields of physics, it's more important to follow the conventions in the literature of the field than the recommendations of some folks who have spent a little too much time in the company of chemists, if you know what I mean.

I do not know what you mean. Please explain with detail.

For example, IUPAP recommends using the term "enplenthy" for the amount-of-substance-usually-just-called-number-of-moles. Do you know anyone who uses this terminology? Along these lines, IUPAP discourages the use of "molar volume" and instead prefers "enplenthic volume". There are a lot of idiosyncratic recommendations in the IUPAP guidelines. Do you know anyone who uses "L" for Avogadro's number?

The term enplenty was suggested by one IUPAC commision, but has not still been accepted and is not part of IUPAC official recommendations, less still of IUPAP.

It is not Avogadro number but Avogadro constant, and IUPAP, IUPAC, and ISO recommend both symbols L and N_A. I understand rationale beyond both symbols: L is used in honor of Josef Loschmidt.

I tend to follow the advice of Howard Georgi, which is not to get too hung up on notation. You have to know what the symbols mean, but getting fussy about whether the speed of light in vacuum is c or c₀ (the IUPAP recommendation) is a waste of time.

Both of you missed the point. The point is not to change A by B because the launch of a coin suggested it. The point is the development of a modern, consistent, and interdisciplinar notation, terminology, and units.

Regarding the ISO,IUPAP,IUPAC symbol for the speed of light you seem to miss the recommendation to omit the subscript denoting vacuum, «when there is no risk of ambiguity».

I've seen a lot of different ways to write the first law; I usually prefer the version with the slashed d's for heat and work inexact differentials, but that can sometimes be a typographic challenge. So sometimes I write

du = δq - δw

and let the δ stand in for slash-d. I'm okay with

ΔU = Q₁₂ - W₁₂

for a finite process between initial state 1 and final state 2, but the bare version ΔU = Q - W looks a little funny. But like I said, it's not worth it to get hung up on notation.

BBB

This is fine

du = δq - δw

and the finite counterpart

ΔU = Q - W

is fine as well. The subindices in your

ΔU = Q₁₂ - W₁₂

are redundant, but it is still acceptable.

What is not acceptable is the notation given here by Andrew Mason, ΔU = ΔQ - W, because this is an inconsistent (and misleading) notation.

 

[juanrga]

The horrendous nomenclature rears its ugly head again.

In thermodynamics, heat flux=heat flux density. Yet in electrodynamics, magnetic flux/area=magnetic flux density, which makes more sense.

Exactly, heat flux=heat flux density makes no sense, because you are equating a quantity with the density of that quantity.

Although in previous years the IUPAP also did the mistake heat flux=heat flux density, they have corrected its mistake now.

The IUPAP defines heat flux density=heat flux/area in its more recent recommendations.

http://www.google.com/search?q=heat+flux
http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=heat+flux
http://msxml.excite.com/info.xcite.psp/search/web?q=heat+flux
http://www.dogpile.com/info.dogpl.t2.7/search/web?fcoid=417&fcop=topnav&fpid=27&q=heat+flux&ql=
http://www.ask.com/web?q=heat+flux

You can find all kind of misconceptions and inconsistencies on the web. Not an argument

 

[juanrga]

The real problem is that the IUPAP, ISO, and IUPAC do not have a dictatorship that forces these definitions to be the only ones taught (and available to learn) via publications. If they had that, we wouldn't have multiple definitions for the word heat flux like what we already have for heat, which helps no one to have, and the wrong people wouldn't be blamed for not being aware of this by others like yourself. Problem is, they don't have that kind of control. Though, it would actually be helpful if they did.

It is good to be aware of last international standards and recommendations; but, of course, I do not encourage to follow anything said by them.

Personally, I try to understand the rationale behind their recommendations and I follow a lot of them, but not all.

 

[Andrew Mason]

Regarding the ISO,IUPAP,IUPAC symbol for the speed of light you seem to miss the recommendation to omit the subscript denoting vacuum, «when there is no risk of ambiguity».
...

What is not acceptable is the notation given here by Andrew Mason, ΔU = ΔQ - W, because this is an inconsistent (and misleading) notation.

The Δ in ΔQ means "difference" in heat flows in the process (|heat flow in| - |heat flow out|). Some times the first law is written ΔU = ΔQ - ΔW where ΔW refers to the difference in work done in the process ie.: |work done by the gas| - |work done on the gas|. ΔU means difference in internal energy. Since internal energy refers to a state rather than a process, it means difference in internal energy between initial and final states.

So long as everyone understands what it means and there is no risk of ambiguity, what is wrong with it?

AM

 

[bbbeard]

Yes, D is a function of the Hamiltonian, just as the non-dissipative part L_H is function as well; the difference is that D is a very very complicated function (as said before). Therefore I prefer not to write it in explicit form here.

As also explained in #56, the Lagrangian formulation (including the Euler Lagrange equations) can be derived after applying approximations on the general equation of motion; the approximations include the neglect of dissipation. You can try to add, by hand, some dissipative term to the final Euler Lagrange equations but the resulting theory will be totally inconsistent {**}.

Well, first, the microscopic Lagrangian is the Standard Model Lagrangian (with the exception of gravity -- we don't know the appropriate way to integrate gravity with either the microscopic Lagrangian or microscopic Hamiltonian in a way that works above tree-level). Most of the time that people do calculations in the Standard Model, they use the Lagrangian formulation, whether the calculation is perturbative or non-perturbative. But Hamiltonian approaches to the Standard Model are equivalent, just usually not as easy to use.

Macroscopic Lagrangians and Hamiltonians are always approximations to collective microscopic dynamics. I don't know of any exceptions to this.

At the macroscopic level, dissipation is incorporated into the Lagrangian approach with the Rayleigh dissipation function (usually denoted with F). F is a functional of {x} and \dot{x}, just like the Lagrangian. However, F is not a "function" of the Lagrangian. Both Lagrangian and Hamiltonian functionals just involve energies, so I am unclear how dissipation can be modeled with something that is *just* a "function" of the Hamiltonian.

Let's consider the simplest example of a classical dissipative system: a block of mass m sliding on a horizontal plane with a frictional force that is proportional to velocity. The Lagrangian is

L=\frac{1}{2}m\dot{x}^2

and the Rayleigh function is

F=\frac{1}{2}c\dot{x}^2.

The Euler-Lagrange equation is

\frac{d}{dt}\frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{x}}-\frac{\partial L}{\partial x}+\frac{\partial F}{\partial \dot{x}}=0

which gives

m\ddot{x}+c\dot{x}=0

In the method you advocate, using the dissipator D, what is the corresponding formulation? And why do you think this model is "totally inconsistent"?

{**} Recall the same online reference that you introduced in a previous post. Read the part where says you that the Lagrangian formalism does not work for systems with dissipation.

I've ignored your note before because you're misinterpreting this Wikipedia entry, possibly because English is not your first language, not that there's anything wrong with that. But in the interests of clarity, the (recently edited) Wikipedia entry on Noether's theorem says

Noether's theorem has become a fundamental tool of modern theoretical physics and the calculus of variations. A generalization of the seminal formulations on constants of motion in Lagrangian and Hamiltonian mechanics (developed in 1788 and 1833, respectively), it does not apply to systems that cannot be modeled with a Lagrangian alone (e.g. systems with a Rayleigh dissipation function). In particular, dissipative systems with continuous symmetries need not have a corresponding conservation law.

What this means is that Noether's theorem does not apply to systems with a dissipation term, for example, there is no conserved current in the sliding block system I presented above. It does not say that systems with dissipation cannot be modeled in the Lagrangian formulation of mechanics. Dissipation is modeled with the Rayleigh dissipation function, which is different from the Lagrangian. Systems with dissipation do not conserve energy -- unless one proceeds to model the system at a lower level, e.g. with a Lagrangian that incorporates the degrees of freedom that absorb the dissipated energy. Ultimately, the microscopic Standard Model Lagrangian is reversible.

BBB

 

[juanrga]

The Δ in ΔQ means "difference" in heat flows in the process (|heat flow in| - |heat flow out|). Some times the first law is written ΔU = ΔQ - ΔW where ΔW refers to the difference in work done in the process ie.: |work done by the gas| - |work done on the gas|. ΔU means difference in internal energy. Since internal energy refers to a state rather than a process, it means difference in internal energy between initial and final states.

So long as everyone understands what it means and there is no risk of ambiguity, what is wrong with it?

AM

All of this was corrected before

 

[juanrga]

Well, first, the microscopic Lagrangian is the Standard Model Lagrangian (with the exception of gravity -- we don't know the appropriate way to integrate gravity with either the microscopic Lagrangian or microscopic Hamiltonian in a way that works above tree-level). Most of the time that people do calculations in the Standard Model, they use the Lagrangian formulation, whether the calculation is perturbative or non-perturbative. But Hamiltonian approaches to the Standard Model are equivalent, just usually not as easy to use.

This is plain wrong. As correctly emphasized by Weinberg in the volume 1 of his quantum theory of fields. It is the Hamiltonian, not the Lagrangian, which is used to obtain the S-matrix elements, after confronted with experiments at lab.

The only utility of the Lagrangian in the SM is that it is more easy to check certain symmetries (which do no need to be fundamental). The Lagrangian is only an easy tool to obtain a Hamiltonian (H=pv-L) with certain physical requirements, nothing more. Since the Lagrangian plays absolutely no central role in the dynamics of particle physics (the generator of time translations is the Hamiltonian), Weinberg even speculates about future Hamiltonian theories not obtained from some previous Lagrangian.

Macroscopic Lagrangians and Hamiltonians are always approximations to collective microscopic dynamics. I don't know of any exceptions to this.

At the macroscopic level, dissipation is incorporated into the Lagrangian approach with the Rayleigh dissipation function (usually denoted with F). F is a functional of {x} and \dot{x}, just like the Lagrangian. However, F is not a "function" of the Lagrangian. Both Lagrangian and Hamiltonian functionals just involve energies, so I am unclear how dissipation can be modeled with something that is *just* a "function" of the Hamiltonian.

Let's consider the simplest example of a classical dissipative system: a block of mass m sliding on a horizontal plane with a frictional force that is proportional to velocity. The Lagrangian is

L=\frac{1}{2}m\dot{x}^2

and the Rayleigh function is

F=\frac{1}{2}c\dot{x}^2.

The Euler-Lagrange equation is

\frac{d}{dt}\frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{x}}-\frac{\partial L}{\partial x}+\frac{\partial F}{\partial \dot{x}}=0

which gives

m\ddot{x}+c\dot{x}=0

In the method you advocate, using the dissipator D, what is the corresponding formulation? And why do you think this model is "totally inconsistent"?

Why this kind of nonsense again? The Euler-Lagrange equations are only valid when one ignores dissipation and takes the pure state approximation.

The Euler Lagrange equation for L is

\frac{d}{dt}\frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{x}}-\frac{\partial L}{\partial x}=0

if you add some term A=A(v) to the Lagrangian the equation for the new Lagrangian L&#039; = L+A would be

\frac{d}{dt}\frac{\partial L+A}{\partial \dot{x}}-\frac{\partial L+A}{\partial x}=0

But this is not what you are doing.

What you do first is to agree that the Euler-Lagrange equation for the Lagrangian L is not valid

\frac{d}{dt}\frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{x}}-\frac{\partial L}{\partial x} \neq 0

and second to add a non Lagrangian term \frac{\partial F}{\partial \dot{x}} \neq \frac{\partial A}{\partial \dot{x}}

\frac{d}{dt}\frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{x}}-\frac{\partial L}{\partial x} + \frac{\partial F}{\partial \dot{x}} = 0

You are confirming that dissipation cannot be studied using the Lagrangian formalism, as you even agree-disagree-agree-disagree-agree-disagree...

Let us now to be serious about dissipation. Applying a number of approximations to the Dρ in the dissipative equation of motion given before, we can obtain the following approximate equation

m\dot{v} = -\zeta v + \tilde{f}

Applying the further approximation that the block of mass is placed in an environment with zero temperature T=0 \mathrm{K}, this is reduced to

m\dot{v} = -\zeta v

which cannot be derived from a Lagrangian, as has been known for centuries.

I've ignored your note before because you're misinterpreting this Wikipedia entry, possibly because English is not your first language, not that there's anything wrong with that. But in the interests of clarity, the (recently edited) Wikipedia entry on Noether's theorem saysWhat this means is that Noether's theorem does not apply to systems with a dissipation term, for example, there is no conserved current in the sliding block system I presented above. It does not say that systems with dissipation cannot be modeled in the Lagrangian formulation of mechanics. Dissipation is modeled with the Rayleigh dissipation function, which is different from the Lagrangian. Systems with dissipation do not conserve energy -- unless one proceeds to model the system at a lower level, e.g. with a Lagrangian that incorporates the degrees of freedom that absorb the dissipated energy. Ultimately, the microscopic Standard Model Lagrangian is reversible.

BBB

In the interest of clarity, Bbbeard edited the Wikipedia the day 27 November 2011 (i.e. yesterday)‎. The entry before your modification said

it does not apply to systems that cannot be modeled with a Lagrangian; for example, dissipative systems

Which is correct and just what I said. This is a beautiful example of why the Wikipedia has a bad fame among scholars. Everyone can go and put any nonsense that (s)he want.P.S: I solicited you more information about your 'insinuations' about the IUPAP and the chemists. What happened?

 

[bbbeard]

The Δ in ΔQ means "difference" in heat flows in the process (|heat flow in| - |heat flow out|). Some times the first law is written ΔU = ΔQ - ΔW where ΔW refers to the difference in work done in the process ie.: |work done by the gas| - |work done on the gas|. ΔU means difference in internal energy. Since internal energy refers to a state rather than a process, it means difference in internal energy between initial and final states.

So long as everyone understands what it means and there is no risk of ambiguity, what is wrong with it?

All of this was corrected before

I don't see the problem with what Andrew is saying. Even the IUPAP Red Book says it's fine to use Δ to indicate a finite change in a quantity (on p.48).

BBB

 

[juanrga]

I don't see the problem with what Andrew is saying. Even the IUPAP Red Book says it's fine to use Δ to indicate a finite change in a quantity (on p.48).

BBB

It is fine for me if both of you do not see any problem with your incorrect and ambiguous notation and terminology and it is also fine for me if both of you decide to re-write the first law as ΔU=ΔQ-ΔW, ignoring all that was said to both.

Fortunately, the rest of us (including ISO, IUPAP, and IUPAC, and standard textbooks) can sanely avoid such abhorrences and write nicely stuff as ΔU=Q-W

 

[Dadface]

Energy is a property of moving bodies and of anything which has the capacity to create movement.

 

[bbbeard]

This is plain wrong. As correctly emphasized by Weinberg in the volume 1 of his quantum theory of fields. It is the Hamiltonian, not the Lagrangian, which is used to obtain the S-matrix elements, after confronted with experiments at lab.

The only utility of the Lagrangian in the SM is that it is more easy to check certain symmetries (which do no need to be fundamental). The Lagrangian is only an easy tool to obtain a Hamiltonian (H=pv-L) with certain physical requirements, nothing more. Since the Lagrangian plays absolutely no central role in the dynamics of particle physics (the generator of time translations is the Hamiltonian), Weinberg even speculates about future Hamiltonian theories not obtained from some previous Lagrangian.

Well, you are welcome to prefer whichever approach you'd like, but the Hamiltonian and Lagrangian frameworks are two sides of the same coin. It's like arguing whether a periodic function is better represented in time domain or frequency domain; because the Fourier transform is invertible, both domains contain the same "essence" of the function. As you yourself have pointed out, the Legendre transformation connects the Hamiltonian and Lagrangian. Equivalently, you can go back and forth between the time-evolution operator (i.e. Hamiltonian) formulation and the path integral (Lagrangian) formulation. If you pick up any textbook, as I'm sure you often do, you will notice that we go back and forth between the two approaches nearly without comment.

However, the Lagrangian is more directly connected to physical symmetries, via the afore-mentioned Noether theorem. In general, you can't just inspect a Hamiltonian and deduce the symmetries that have conserved currents. More to the point, particle physics proceeds by formulating Lagrangians that have desired symmetries and then calculating the observational consequences. Weinberg says this (Vol I, p.298-9):

Having seen that various realistic theories may be cast in the canonical formalism, we must now face the question of how to choose the Hamiltonian. As we will see in the next section, the easiest way to enforce Lorentz invariance and other symmetries is to choose a suitable Lagrangian and use it to derive the Hamiltonian. There is not much loss of generality in this; given a realistic Hamiltonian, we can generally reconstruct a Lagrangian from which it could be derived, be reversing the process that we are going to describe here of deriving Hamiltonians from Lagrangians... But although we can go from Hamiltonians to Lagrangians or Lagrangians to Hamiltonians, it is easier to explore physically satisfactory theories by listing possible Lagrangians, rather than Hamiltonians.

Indeed, this is the basis of chiral perturbation theory -- you start with a Lagrangian that contains all the possible terms (to the desired order) that respect the symmetries of the parent theory, you work out the observables, and you match the undetermined coefficients with the data from other sources. A beautiful example of this is the 1996 paper by Beard and Wiese, which provides numerical estimates of the parameters of the CPT formulation of Hasenfratz and Niedermayer for the anti-ferromagnetic Heisenberg model.

A more pragmatic approach is advocated by Halzen and Martin (Quarks and Leptons, p.313):

What is the relation between the Lagrangian approach and the perturbative method based on Feynman rules obtained from single-particle wave equations? To each Lagrangian, there corresponds a set of Feynman rules; and so, once we identify these rules, the connection is made. We can then calculate physical quantities by just following the methods presented in Chapters 4 and 6.

The identification of the Feynman rules proceeds as follows: [rules are given]...

In the orthodox approach to quantum field theory, we would now proceed to formally derive these assertions. In order to do this, the classical Lagrangian is quantized... The end result of this lengthy and formal approach can always be translated into a set of Feynman rules which are exactly those we just described. So, we might as well take these rules and proceed to investigate the physical implications of a given Lagrangian using the methods with which we are already familiar. The canonical formalism was formerly regarded as more rigorous and can be found in many books... We do not present it, as we will never use it. We hereby subscribe to the growing belief that "the diagrams contain more truth than the underlying formalism" ['t Hooft and Veltman (1973)]

You know I could go on. Practically every book on quantum field theory uses the same approach. What I said is true: "Most of the time that people do calculations in the Standard Model, they use the Lagrangian formulation, whether the calculation is perturbative or non-perturbative." You lift the Feynman rules from the Lagrangian, not the Hamiltonian. To formulate a theory that respects a desired set of symmetries, you write down a Lagrangian, not a Hamiltonian.

And this is what you seem unwilling to face: the Lagrangian is not just a "check", and not just a way point on the way to a Hamiltonian, but it's how particle physics is done. We go straight from the Lagrangian to Feynman rules to calculating amplitudes, or, we go straight from the Lagrangian to numerical methods. Now again, I'm not claiming primacy for Lagrangians over Hamiltonians in some metaphysical sense -- as I said, they are two sides of the same coin. It's your eccentric view that the Hamiltonian approach is somehow more fundamental than Lagrangian approach.

Why this kind of nonsense again? The Euler-Lagrange equations are only valid when one ignores dissipation and takes the pure state approximation... if you add some term A=A(v) to the Lagrangian... But this is not what you are doing... You are confirming that dissipation cannot be studied using the Lagrangian formalism, as you even agree-disagree-agree-disagree-agree-disagree...

Honest to gosh, Juan, you act like you've never studied Lagrangian mechanics. You don't add the Rayleigh dissipation function to the Lagrangian. And the Rayleigh function is just an elegant way to insert external forces, which are more often computed using the method of virtual work. And all this is part of Lagrangian mechanics -- go get a book.

Let us now to be serious about dissipation. Applying a number of approximations to the Dρ in the dissipative equation of motion given before, we can obtain the following approximate equation

m\dot{v} = -\zeta v + \tilde{f}

Applying the further approximation that the block of mass is placed in an environment with zero temperature T=0 \mathrm{K}, this is reduced to

m\dot{v} = -\zeta v

which cannot be derived from a Lagrangian, as has been known for centuries.

Nor can it be derived from the Hamiltonian. The term -\zeta v is inserted "by hand" just like the Rayleigh function. It is not, as you have claimed, a "function" of the Hamiltonian.

In the interest of clarity, Bbbeard edited the Wikipedia the day 27 November 2011 (i.e. yesterday)‎. The entry before your modification said

it does not apply to systems that cannot be modeled with a Lagrangian; for example, dissipative systems

Which is correct and just what I said. This is a beautiful example of why the Wikipedia has a bad fame among scholars. Everyone can go and put any nonsense that (s)he want.

On the contrary, this is the strength of Wikipedia -- that knowledgeable contributors can correct and refine the information without an interminable review process. In fact all I did was to clarify what the previous text meant -- that some systems require more than just the Lagrangian to describe. It is not the case that the systems cannot be treated within the Lagrangian framework; what was meant was that these systems are not described by a Lagrangian alone. This is an elementary point.

However, the fact that Wikipedia is compiled by volunteers can mean that the quality is variable. I am willing to cite Wikipedia when I feel that the content is appropriate for pedagogy, but it is rarely, if ever, reasonable to cite it as authority.

BBB

 

[juanrga]

Well, you are welcome to prefer whichever approach you'd like, but the Hamiltonian and Lagrangian frameworks are two sides of the same coin. It's like arguing whether a periodic function is better represented in time domain or frequency domain; because the Fourier transform is invertible, both domains contain the same "essence" of the function. As you yourself have pointed out, the Legendre transformation connects the Hamiltonian and Lagrangian. Equivalently, you can go back and forth between the time-evolution operator (i.e. Hamiltonian) formulation and the path integral (Lagrangian) formulation. If you pick up any textbook, as I'm sure you often do, you will notice that we go back and forth between the two approaches nearly without comment.

It is the Hamiltonian, not the Lagrangian, which enters in the computation of the S-matrix. Standard textbooks will give you the definition of the S-matrix in terms of the Hamiltonian...

However, the Lagrangian is more directly connected to physical symmetries, via the afore-mentioned Noether theorem. In general, you can't just inspect a Hamiltonian and deduce the symmetries that have conserved currents. More to the point, particle physics proceeds by formulating Lagrangians that have desired symmetries and then calculating the observational consequences. Weinberg says this (Vol I, p.298-9):

What he says in that quote is essentially what I said and is still quoted at the start of your above message.

Indeed, this is the basis of chiral perturbation theory -- you start with a Lagrangian that contains all the possible terms (to the desired order) that respect the symmetries of the parent theory, you work out the observables, and you match the undetermined coefficients with the data from other sources. A beautiful example of this is the 1996 paper by Beard and Wiese, which provides numerical estimates of the parameters of the CPT formulation of Hasenfratz and Niedermayer for the anti-ferromagnetic Heisenberg model.

A more pragmatic approach is advocated by Halzen and Martin (Quarks and Leptons, p.313):

You know I could go on. Practically every book on quantum field theory uses the same approach. What I said is true: "Most of the time that people do calculations in the Standard Model, they use the Lagrangian formulation, whether the calculation is perturbative or non-perturbative." You lift the Feynman rules from the Lagrangian, not the Hamiltonian. To formulate a theory that respects a desired set of symmetries, you write down a Lagrangian, not a Hamiltonian.

And this is what you seem unwilling to face: the Lagrangian is not just a "check", and not just a way point on the way to a Hamiltonian, but it's how particle physics is done. We go straight from the Lagrangian to Feynman rules to calculating amplitudes, or, we go straight from the Lagrangian to numerical methods. Now again, I'm not claiming primacy for Lagrangians over Hamiltonians in some metaphysical sense -- as I said, they are two sides of the same coin. It's your eccentric view that the Hamiltonian approach is somehow more fundamental than Lagrangian approach.

This whole part is rather incorrect.

(i) Precisely the fact of that many 'old' textbooks on quantum field theory lack precision and rigor was the starting point why Weinberg decided to write his own book, without worrying about «historical precedent», and using a new and fresh perspective about QFT.

(ii) You cite partially Weinberg in your message:

the easiest way to enforce Lorentz invariance and other symmetries is to choose a suitable Lagrangian and use it to derive the Hamiltonian.

In that part he is confirming what I said before about the role of the Lagrangian as check for obtaining a suitable Hamiltonian. But Weinberg also says in his book:

It is the Hamiltonian formalism that is needed to calculate the S-matrix (whether by operator or path-integral methods)

Which is a kind of trivial statement: first, because the Hamiltonian is the generator of time-translations and, second, because the S-matrix is defined using this generator. However, I understand that he needs to emphasize this kind of trivial stuff, because the old literature on QFT is full of misconceptions and nonsense {*}.

(iii) Regarding the Feynman rules, precisely Weinberg offers an example of a kind of theories for the which

using the naive Feynman rules derived directly from the Lagrangian density would yield an S-matrix that is not only wrong but even non-unitary

. He then derives the path-integral formalism from the Hamiltonian formalism, supplementing the simplest version of the Feynman path-integral.

Honest to gosh, Juan, you act like you've never studied Lagrangian mechanics. You don't add the Rayleigh dissipation function to the Lagrangian. And the Rayleigh function is just an elegant way to insert external forces, which are more often computed using the method of virtual work. And all this is part of Lagrangian mechanics -- go get a book.

You are so confused about the Lagrangian formalism that you not even understand that derivation what you pasted in this forum.

Let me explain what you really did. You introduced a 'Rayleigh function' for accounting for dissipation, because dissipation cannot be studied using a Lagrangian and the Euler-Lagrange equations.

If dissipation could be studied using the Lagrangian formalism, one would simply write down some Lagrangian and then derive the dissipative equation of motion for the mass using the Euler-Lagrange equations. Since this is not possible, you have amended the Euler Lagrange equation with an ad hoc non-Lagrangian term.

Precisely, this is the reason, which the Wikipedia article correctly said that dissipative systems could not be described by a Lagrangian.

The Wikipedia article, before you edited it, said exactly:

it does not apply to systems that cannot be modeled with a Lagrangian; for example, dissipative systems

External forces (non-dissipative) can be introduced in the Lagrangian-formalism by adding a potential term to the Lagrangian (L → L - U) and then deriving the equation of motion using Euler-Lagrange. It is not needed to use a 'Rayleigh function' for introducing external force as you claim. You are mixing apples and oranges once again.

Nor can it be derived from the Hamiltonian. The term -\zeta v is inserted "by hand" just like the Rayleigh function. It is not, as you have claimed, a "function" of the Hamiltonian.

If you read the part what you quoted, you can see me saying that the term -\zeta v was derived from the dissipator (which itself is a function of the Hamiltonian).

But there is more, if you continue reading the part what you quote, you will discover how we go beyond your approach and obtain a correction term \tilde{f}. This term, absent in your ad hoc equation, is needed to correct your equation in well-defined situations.

When the particle subject to friction is relatively small and placed in a heat bath, the equation that I derived gives the correct asymptotic behavior, whereas yours ad hoc equation miserably fails. Your equation miserably fails because does not account correctly for dissipation and, as a consequence, predicts an incorrect final thermal state.

On the contrary, this is the strength of Wikipedia -- that knowledgeable contributors can correct and refine the information without an interminable review process. In fact all I did was to clarify what the previous text meant -- that some systems require more than just the Lagrangian to describe. It is not the case that the systems cannot be treated within the Lagrangian framework; what was meant was that these systems are not described by a Lagrangian alone. This is an elementary point.

However, the fact that Wikipedia is compiled by volunteers can mean that the quality is variable. I am willing to cite Wikipedia when I feel that the content is appropriate for pedagogy, but it is rarely, if ever, reasonable to cite it as authority.

BBB

Evidently, the problem is when those «knowledgeable contributors» have absolutely no idea of the topic. That is the reason for which scholarly alternatives to the Wikipedia only allow to «knowledgeable contributors» (i.e., scholars with credentials) to edit the articles.

{*} An author of a well-known handbook did the silly claim that QED is a Lagrangian theory and that no Hamiltonian exists for QED. Silliness of his claim increases when the same handbook contains a chapter (by another author) devoted to give the Hamiltonian of QED...

 

[Studiot]

This is a most interesting discussion, gentlemen.

Please do not let the rhetoric become overheated to the point of obscuring the physics.

 

[bbbeard]

This is a most interesting discussion, gentlemen.

Please do not let the rhetoric become overheated to the point of obscuring the physics.

Yes, well, apparently quantum field theory has not yet reached the point of "consensus science"...

BBB

 

[kith]

juanrga, I'm not sure if I understand your claim that the Dissipator is a function of the Hamiltonian correctly.

The full Hamiltonian for a dissipative system (S) and the relevant part of it's environment (E) reads H=H_S+H_E+H_int. The Dissipator of the system can't be expressed by the system Hamiltonian H_S alone, because it describes interactions of the system with it's environment. It has to include H_int.

So did you mean that the Dissipator is a function of the full Hamiltonian?

The difference between the Lagrangian formulation and the Hamiltonian formulation would then be the following: Under certain physically justifiable approximations, we can derive an effective description of the dissipative system from the full Hamiltonian. We can't do this using the full Lagrangian. Instead we have to start with the Lagrangian of the system without dissipation and include dissipation by hand.

 

[juanrga]

juanrga, I'm not sure if I understand your claim that the Dissipator is a function of the Hamiltonian correctly.

The full Hamiltonian for a dissipative system (S) and the relevant part of it's environment (E) reads H=H_S+H_E+H_int. The Dissipator of the system can't be expressed by the system Hamiltonian H_S alone, because it describes interactions of the system with it's environment. It has to include H_int.

So did you mean that the Dissipator is a function of the full Hamiltonian?

The difference between the Lagrangian formulation and the Hamiltonian formulation would then be the following: Under certain physically justifiable approximations, we can derive an effective description of the dissipative system from the full Hamiltonian. We can't do this using the full Lagrangian. Instead we have to start with the Lagrangian of the system without dissipation and include dissipation by hand.

As showed in #56 the Hamiltonian formalism is derived when dissipation is ignored and a pure approximation is applied. As also said in #56

Of course, we can derive the Lagrangian formalism from the Hamiltonian formalism, using the Legendre transformation L(q,v) = pv - H(q,p)

That is, the Lagrangian formalism is valid only when dissipation is ignored and a pure approximation is applied.

Of course, you can start with a «Lagrangian of the system without dissipation and include dissipation by hand». But there is not guarantie. Precisely even the trivial equation obtained by bbbeard fails in several well-known cases. Whereas the equation obtained from the dissipative theory gives the correct final thermal state.

The equation of motion given in #56 is exact and, so far as I know, describes any system either dissipative or not.

As also said in #56 both the Liouvillian and the dissipator are functions of the Hamiltonian.

The dissipator is a very complex object that includes several powers of the interaction Liouvillian L_int (which is itself a function of H_int), 'propagators' exp(L₀t), where the 'free' Liouvillian L₀ is itself a function of H_S and H_E, and more stuff.

If you know the Hamiltonian you can obtain both Liouvillian and dissipator. Another thing is if after obtaining both you find a powerful enough supercomputer to solve the resulting equation.

The Lagrangian formalism cannot account for dissipation, as the Wikipedia article cited by bbbeard correctly said before bbbeard corrupted it. Moreover, the Lagrangian formalism plays absolutely no role in the dynamics of quantum mechanics or in QFT scattering. As Weinberg correctly notices in his celebrated textboook in QFT:

It is the Hamiltonian formalism that is needed to calculate the S-matrix (whether by operator or path-integral methods)

In QFT, the Lagrangian is only a simple way to check that the resulting quantum Hamiltonian formalism satisfies certain symmetries. Again Weinberg is very clever:

the easiest way to enforce Lorentz invariance and other symmetries is to choose a suitable Lagrangian and use it to derive the Hamiltonian

In classical mechanics, the Lagrangian formalism is, in principle, equivalent to the Hamiltonian formalism (see #56). The two difficulties are (i) those cases in which the Legendre transformation cannot be solved exactly and (ii) the well-known computational difficulties associated to the Lagrangian formalism (second order equations). In practice, is much simpler to design computational algorithms for the Hamiltonian formalism (first order equations).

 

[kith]

As showed in #56 the Hamiltonian formalism is derived when dissipation is ignored and a pure approximation is applied.

Ah, I just realized that I assumed that the term "Hamiltonian formulation" would also apply to the Liouvillian / von Neumann equation, which is probably wrong. Now your posts make much more sense to me. ;-)

So the true advantage of the Hamiltonian formalism is that it generalizes easily to mixed states, while the Lagrangian formalism does not?

The equation of motion given in #56 is exact and, so far as I know, describes any system either dissipative or not.

I don't think it is the general form of dynamics for an arbitrary subsystem of a closed system. In deriving such structures from the full Liouville / von Neumann equation, one usually makes certain assumptions (Markov approximation, weak coupling) which may not be fulfilled in general.

If you know the Hamiltonian you can obtain both Liouvillian and dissipator. Another thing is if after obtaining both you find a powerful enough supercomputer to solve the resulting equation.

If I know the full Hamiltonian and don't care about computational power, I could also just solve the Liouville / von Neumann equation for the whole system and trace out the environmental degrees of freedom later.

 

[azaharak]

This is not generally true. It is only true if the applied force F is the only force acting on the body.
AM

I think you are not interpreting what was initially said or meant.

If you want to correct the statement, it would be that the NET WORK done on a body is equal to its change in kinetic energy. I think that was implied.

Where the NET work done is the sum of all the works done on the body. For the car moving up a hill at constant speed, the net work done is zero.

 

[Andrew Mason]

I think you are not interpreting what was initially said or meant.

I was responding to the statement that W = \int F\cdot ds = mv^2/2

This is not true unless the force, F, applied to the body is the only force (or is the net force) acting on the body. The work done by an applied force to a body against gravity does not result in kinetic energy of mv^2/2, for example.

That is all I was saying.

AM

 

[azaharak]

I was responding to the statement that W = \int F\cdot ds = mv^2/2

That is all I was saying.

AM

The 1st statement written was

"Work done on a system is defined as the change in Kinetic Energy (KE) of that system. While The total energy of a system is the potential energy (PE) plus the kinetic energy, E=PE+KE."

There isn't anything wrong with this, one can read that is that the NET work done on a body is equal to its change in kinetic energy.

Furthermore, if you read the responding post there is clearly a summation over (i)


W12=∑i∫21Fi⋅dsi=∑i∫21miv˙i⋅vidt=∑i∫21d(12miv2i)=T2−T1 where T=12∑imiv2i is the kinetic energy of the system.


The summation clearly takes into account all the forces and gives you the net work done on the object. So I don't know what your talking about only one force, it works for many forces.

For instance if a block slides down a plane at constant speed, two forces contribute non zero work, the work done by gravity and the work done by friction. The NET work done on the object is zero, hence its kinetic energy remains constant.

Both original posts are correct.

 

[juanrga]

Ah, I just realized that I assumed that the term "Hamiltonian formulation" would also apply to the Liouvillian / von Neumann equation, which is probably wrong. Now your posts make much more sense to me. ;-)

Sometimes the term «Liouville formulation» is applied to the Liouville von Neumann equation. I think that I never used the term «Hamiltonian formalism» for this equation.

In my posts I only said that the Liouvillian was a function of the Hamiltonian, and showed how the «Hamiltonian formulation» was derived under certain approximations/assumptions from a more general formulation that uses the Liouvillian and the dissipator.

So the true advantage of the Hamiltonian formalism is that it generalizes easily to mixed states, while the Lagrangian formalism does not?

In #86 I gave some advantages of the classical Hamiltonian formalism over the classical Lagrangian formalism, as the computational advantages. I also explain how the quantum Hamiltonian formalism is used in QFT to obtain the S-matrix (after utilized in the lab).

Since that the Hamiltonian (not the Lagrangian) is the generator of time translations for pure states. Generalizations to mixed states, unstable states, dissipative systems, etc. utilize formalism based in the existence of a Hamiltonian.

I don't think it is the general form of dynamics for an arbitrary subsystem of a closed system. In deriving such structures from the full Liouville / von Neumann equation, one usually makes certain assumptions (Markov approximation, weak coupling) which may not be fulfilled in general.

The equation given includes non-Markovian corrections and coupling to any order. That is the reason for which the form of the dissipator D is so complex that I apologized for not writing it in explicit form. Of course applying a Markov approximation and taking coupling only up to second order (weak coupling) the dissipator simplifies a lot of.

If I know the full Hamiltonian and don't care about computational power, I could also just solve the Liouville / von Neumann equation for the whole system and trace out the environmental degrees of freedom later.

No exactly. The equation for the whole system is not the ordinary Liouville / von Neumann equation (which is unitary and time-reversible) but a generalized equation, with emergent elements beyond the Hilbert space, which is non-unitary and time-irreversible. See for instance:

1997 "The Liouville Space Extension of Quantum Mechanics" T. Petrosky and I. Prigogine Advances in Chemical Physics Volume 99, 1-120

One application of this recent formalism to an extension of scattering theory

http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRA/v53/p4075_1

an introduction to this paper is given here

http://www.ph.utexas.edu/~gonzalo/3bgraphs.html

See also other applications of the generalized Liouville von Neumann equation:

2001 "Quantum transitions and dressed unstable states" G. Ordonez, T. Petrosky and I. Prigogine Phys. Rev. A 63, 052106

2000 "Quantum transitions and nonlocality" T. Petrosky, G. Ordonez and I. Prigogine Phys. Rev. A 62 42106

 

[kith]

The equation given includes non-Markovian corrections and coupling to any order.

You are talking about corrections and power series expansion. To me, this sounds like there are some underlying assumptions. Can you please give a reference?

No exactly. The equation for the whole system is not the ordinary Liouville / von Neumann equation (which is unitary and time-reversible) but a generalized equation, with emergent elements beyond the Hilbert space, which is non-unitary and time-irreversible. See for instance: [...]

As far as I can see, your references are talking about the dynamics of systems approaching equilibrium. From the viewpoint of fundamental dynamics, this means there is again an environment involved. So this just adds a layer of complexity. Again the equations of motion can in principle be derived from the Hamiltonian of a larger system. Namely the combined system "whole" system + relevant part of it's environment. This system evolves accordingly to the Liouville / von Neumann equation.

But I can see where this is going. We're going to end up in another discussion about the question, if the time-evolution of closed systems is unitarian. ;-)

 

[Studiot]

I haven't touched particle physics since the 1960s so I am really an (obsolete) interested bystander here.

One thing puzzles me, juanrga.

What exactly is a 'pure state' - it is not a term I am familiar with.

Further since you make the distinction what alternatives are there ie what might non pure state be and what are they called?

Thanks.

 

[kith]

I haven't touched particle physics since the 1960s so I am really an (obsolete) interested bystander here.

I don't know much about QFT myself. The last few posts were about more fundamental questions, concerning the Hamiltonian formalism which can be considered the framework for QFT and many other branches of physics.

What exactly is a 'pure state' - it is not a term I am familiar with.

A pure state is a state of maximum knowledge. In statistical mechanics, you typically only know macroscopic variables like temperature. These macro variables do not specify your micro state completely, but lead to a variety of possible states. So the fundamental objects in statistical mechanics are not pure states, but so-called mixed states.

Classically, a mixed state ρ is a probability distribution on the space of states. The Hamiltonian equations of motion generalize to the Liouville equation. Quantum mechanically, a mixed state ρ is an an operator on the space of states. The Schrödinger equation generalizes to the von Neumann equation.

If you want to include dissipation, the situation gets more complicated and that's one of the things which have been discussed throughout this thread.

 

[Andrew Mason]

The 1st statement written was

"Work done on a system is defined as the change in Kinetic Energy (KE) of that system. While The total energy of a system is the potential energy (PE) plus the kinetic energy, E=PE+KE."

There isn't anything wrong with this, one can read that is that the NET work done on a body is equal to its change in kinetic energy.

So then, what is kinetic energy? You cannot then define kinetic energy the ability to do work (by virtue of its motion) because that is circular.

This is not so much a definition of net Work as it is a statement that net work results in a change of kinetic energy. Work is still defined as force applied through a distance and energy as the ability to do work.

Furthermore, if you read the responding post there is clearly a summation over (i)W12=∑i∫21Fi⋅dsi=∑i∫21miv˙i⋅vidt=∑i∫21d(12miv2i)=T2−T1 where T=12∑imiv2i is the kinetic energy of the system.The summation clearly takes into account all the forces and gives you the net work done on the object. So I don't know what your talking about only one force, it works for many forces.

For instance if a block slides down a plane at constant speed, two forces contribute non zero work, the work done by gravity and the work done by friction. The NET work done on the object is zero, hence its kinetic energy remains constant.

Both original posts are correct.

There is only one v. There are not a v_i for each F_i. So I am not sure what v_i means. Perhaps it should be:

W = \int_1^2 (\sum \vec{F_i})\cdot d\vec{s} = \int_1^2 \vec{F_{net}}\cdot d\vec{s} = \int _1^2 m\dot vdv = \frac{1}{2}mv_2^2 - \frac{1}{2}mv_1^2 = \Delta KE where v is the speed of the centre of mass of the body.

AM

 

[cbetanco]

So then, what is kinetic energy? You cannot then define kinetic energy the ability to do work (by virtue of its motion) because that is circular.

The Kinetic energy is KE=\frac{1}{2}mv^2. There is no mention of work in that definition. The Work done on a system between the initial and final state is defined to be the change in kinetic energy of the system in the initial state to its final state. It is NOT circular to define a new quantity to be the change of another quantity from the initial to the final state.

This is not so much a definition of net Work as it is a statement that net work results in a change of kinetic energy. Work is still defined as force applied through a distance and energy as the ability to do work.

Yes, it is still defined as the force applied through a distance, but what I had showed you is that this is equivalent to the change in Kinetic Energy of the system

There is only one v. There are not a v_i for each F_i. So I am not sure what v_i means. Perhaps it should be:

W = \int_1^2 (\sum \vec{F_i})\cdot d\vec{s} = \int_1^2 \vec{F_{net}}\cdot d\vec{s} = \int _1^2 m\dot vdv = \frac{1}{2}mv_2^2 - \frac{1}{2}mv_1^2 = \Delta KE where v is the speed of the centre of mass of the body.

AM

The F_i is the NET external force acting on the ith mass, m_i. The i is not an index over individual forces, its an index running over all the masses of the system. These are point particles with mass m_i in the strictly classical sense, but it also works with rigid bodies if you instead have a mass density where you take m_i\rightarrow\rho(\bf{x}) and integrate over the mass density \rho(\bf{x}) for the entire volume. Then, you would just have to replace m_i with \rho(\bf{x}) and \bf{v_i} with \bf{v}, where \bf{v} is the velocity of the rigid body, and then then take the sum \sum_i \rightarrow \int_V d\bf{x} in the equation in my second post and you would still get the work done on the system is equivalent to the change in KE of the system

 

[cmb]

Gosh! How complicated it all is!

And there I was thinking that energy is, simply, the essential attribute that is required to change a system from one state to another.

 

[Andrew Mason]

Yes, it is still defined as the force applied through a distance, but what I had showed you is that this is equivalent to the change in Kinetic Energy of the system

Just because the magnitude of the work is the same as the magnitude of the change in kinetic energy does not mean they are the same thing. Energy is a property that a body has - the ability to do work and work is force applied through a distance. Saying that work is defined as the change in kinetic energy confuses the fundamental difference between Work and Energy.

The difference is that Work is a transfer of energy to/from a body and Energy is a property of the state of a body.

This distinction is important. For example, in thermodynamics W=Work and Q = Heat flow are transfers of energy not properties of a state of a thermodynamic system. Energy=U, is a property of the state of a system. Saying ΔU = Q+W does not mean that ΔU is defined as Q+W. It is merely a statement that the magnitude of the change in U is equal to the sum of the heat flow to and work done on the system.

AM

 

[cmb]

Energy is a property that a body has

or a field...

...or a propagating wave...

...or...?

 

[Andrew Mason]

or a field...

...or a propagating wave...

...or...?

Fields and propagating waves are all associated with some body ie. some kind of structure that has inertia or mass. Is the energy in the field or in the body? Does a photon represent energy or the transfer of energy from one body to another?

AM