Average kinetic energy of the molecules in a cold liquid less?

[manogyana25]

Why is the average kinetic energy of the molecules a cold liquid less?

As the temperature of a liquid decreases, the average kinetic energy of its molecules reduce. What is the reason behind this?

 

[PWiz]

Why is the average kinetic energy of the molecules a cold liquid less?

Less compared to what?
And temperature is defined as the average kinetic energy of the particles in a substance. A decrease in temperature is therefore synonymous with a decrease in average kinetic energy.

 

[DrClaude]

And temperature is defined as the average kinetic energy of the particles in a substance.

Really?

 

[OmCheeto]

Why is the average kinetic energy of the molecules a cold liquid less?

As the temperature of a liquid decreases, the average kinetic energy of its molecules reduce. What is the reason behind this?

It sounds like you are asking why someone bothered to attempt to define temperature:

Paragraph #4 on wiki, regarding Temperature
The kinetic theory offers a valuable but limited account of the behavior of the materials of macroscopic systems. It indicates the absolute temperature as proportional to the average kinetic energy of the random microscopic motions of their constituent microscopic particles such as electrons, atoms, and molecules.

People try to define things all the time. "Why" temperature is defined this way, is probably based on other previous definitions.
Of course, all definitions are limited, in their scope.

 

[PWiz]

Really?

Yes. Are you joking or are you serious?

 

[DrClaude]

Yes. Are you joking or are you serious?

I'm serious. I've never seen temperature defined as the average kinetic energy. And think about it: does it make sense for a solid? What about spin temperature? Yes, the average kinetic energy does increase with temperature, but that's a consequence, not a cause.

Historically, temperature was defined basically as "what a thermometer measures," which is a bit of a circular definition. In modern thermodynamics, temperature is defined through the concept of thermal equilibrium (two objects that can exchange energy are at the same temperature if there is no net flow of energy from one to the other) and quantified by the relation
$$
\frac{1}{T} = \frac{dS}{dU}
$$

 

[PWiz]

The kinetic theory offers a valuable but limited account of the behavior of the materials of macroscopic systems. It indicates the absolute temperature as proportional to the average kinetic energy of the random microscopic motions of their constituent microscopic particles such as electrons, atoms, and molecules.

Most introductory physics textbooks have this explanation, right?

Temperature is a measure of how hot or cold something is; specifically, a measure of the average kinetic energy of the particles in an object, which is a type of energy associated with motion.

(I didn't set that in bold)
I'm not an expert in thermodynamics, but isn't it reasonable to loosely define kinetic temperature for a liquid in this manner? I doubt a very formal treatment of entropy is required here

 

[DrClaude]

Most introductory physics textbooks have this explanation, right?

Nope. Just to be sure, I just checked in all those I have on my shelf, and none state that, even the ones in physical chemistry, which tend to be less rigorous

Temperature is a measure of how hot or cold something is; specifically, a measure of the average kinetic energy of the particles in an object, which is a type of energy associated with motion.

That is plainly and simply wrong.

I'm not an expert in thermodynamics, but isn't it reasonable to loosely define kinetic temperature for a liquid in this manner? I doubt a very formal treatment of entropy is required here

The way to do it without invoking entropy is to state that temperature is what a thermometer measures, and discuss thermal equilibrium and the 0th law of thermodynamics. You could do all of classical thermodynamics without even invoking atoms or molecules, so the motion of atoms or molecules is not necessary for the concept of temperature. Of course, in modern times, one should introduce early on the concept that an increase in energy leads to an increase in the internal motion of the constituents of matter, but it is wrong to state that this is how one defines temperature.

Let me take another example to show the problem with this: at the triple point of a substance, you have a solid, a liquid, and a gas phase coexisting at the same temperature. If temperature is defined as the average kinetic energy, is one to conclude that the average kinetic energy is the solid, the liquid, and the gas is the same?

 

[Vinay080]

In everyday life, hot or high temperature matter, is defined to have high average kinetic energy (as most of them state here), rather than simply high energy. Why is it defined to have high average kinetic energy rather than high energy?

Whatever we touch and feel hot, might have high energy but less kinetic energy, it might even continue to have same kinetic energy when we feel it to be cool (here other form of energy might have decreased rather than kinetic energy). What proof do we have to show that temperature or heat is the function of just kinetic energy rather than energy?

OP seems to mean the same thing.

 

[PWiz]

Let me take another example to show the problem with this: at the triple point of a substance, you have a solid, a liquid, and a gas phase coexisting at the same temperature. If temperature is defined as the average kinetic energy, is one to conclude that the average kinetic energy is the solid, the liquid, and the gas is the same?

Are you telling me to compare the kinetic and potential energies of ice, water and water vapor?

 

[DrClaude]

Are you telling me to compare the kinetic and potential energies of ice, water and water vapor?

Not even. When you have a phase transition, there is no relation between energy and temperature, because temperature is constant while the energy of the system increases or decreases depending on the direction of the phase transition.

 

[DrClaude]

In everyday life, hot or high temperature matter, is defined to have high average kinetic energy (as most of them state here), rather than simply high energy. Why is it defined to have high average kinetic energy rather than high energy?

Once more, temperature is never defined as the average kinetic energy. In everyday life, temperature is what a thermometer measures.

What proof do we have to show that temperature or heat is the function of just kinetic energy rather than energy?

The simple answer is that it's not. Only for a classical ideal gas is temperature strictly related to kinetic energy.

 

[DrClaude]

With all this, I forgot to answer the OP

Why is the average kinetic energy of the molecules a cold liquid less?

As the temperature of a liquid decreases, the average kinetic energy of its molecules reduce. What is the reason behind this?

As I mentioned above, temperature is a measure of the tendency of an system to give away or receive energy from another system. When two object of different temperature are in (thermal) contact, the overall exchange in energy will be from the hot object to the cold one, until equilibrium is reached, meaning that there is no overall flow of energy, and the objects are said to be at the same temperature. That energy going to the cold object ends up in all possible ways that object can have energy, including kinetic energy. There is also the equipartition theorem that states how that energy is distributed among the possible ways of storing energy (called degrees of freedom).

 

[PWiz]

Not even. When you have a phase transition, there is no relation between energy and temperature, because temperature is constant while the energy of the system increases or decreases depending on the direction of the phase transition.

If I were to make a guess, all that I would be able to say is that in a phase transition, there is no transfer of heat among the particles (they are all at the same "temperature"). I can't make much progress on the idea except perhaps say that temperature is dependent upon a property that all particles share during phase transitions. It's almost as if both my hands are tied behind my back if I were to define temperature without using translational kinetic energy.

 

[DrClaude]

If I were to make a guess, all that I would be able to say is that in a phase transition, there is no transfer of heat among the particles (they are all at the same "temperature").

Imagine you have some water at 0 °C, kept in an isolated container. That water is 3/4 ice and 1/4 liquid water. What happens if you leave the system unperturbed? What happens if you furnish a small amount of heat to the system?

It's almost as if both my hands are tied behind my back if I were to define temperature without using translational kinetic energy.

I don't understand why you are all so intent on defining temperature like that. Yes, there is a relation between temperature and kinetic energy, but there is no way you can build a useful definition of temperature by looking only at kinetic energy.

You are also missing out on some extremely cool (pun intended) physics, such as adiabatic demagnetization (or magnetic refrigeration) and negative temperatures.

 

[PWiz]

Imagine you have some water at 0 °C, kept in an isolated container. That water is 3/4 ice and 1/4 liquid water. What happens if you leave the system unperturbed? What happens if you furnish a small amount of heat to the system?

If no external heat energy is supplied and no work is done on the system, then the proportion of ice and liquid water should remain constant, as an equilibrium between their concentrations is established at 0°C. If heat is added to the system, the potential and kinetic energy of the $H_2O$ particles must increase, so a greater proportion of ice will be converted to liquid (latent heat of fusion). The increase in kinetic energy will obviously not exactly correspond with the amount of thermal energy supplied as the potential energy of the particles increases as well. Nonetheless the molecular energy distribution graph for the particles will shift so that the mean molecular energy increases. (Unless I forgot basic principles of thermodynamics!)
Where do we go from here?

 

[DrClaude]

If no external heat energy is supplied and no work is done on the system, then the proportion of ice and liquid water should remain constant, as an equilibrium between their concentrations is established at 0°C. If heat is added to the system, the potential and kinetic energy of the $H_2O$ particles must increase, so a greater proportion of ice will be converted to liquid (latent heat of fusion). The increase in kinetic energy will obviously not exactly correspond with the amount of thermal energy supplied as the potential energy of the particles increases as well. Nonetheless the molecular energy distribution graph for the particles will shift so that the mean molecular energy increases. (Unless I forgot basic principles of thermodynamics!)
Where do we go from here?

That's the point I was getting at. You clearly have an increase in kinetic energy, while temperature hasn't changed. Therefore, you definitely can't define temperature as average kinetic energy.

 

[PWiz]

As I mentioned above, temperature is a measure of the tendency of an system to give away or receive energy from another system.

If I'm not misunderstanding this, then there seems to be a problem with this definition. It means that you fundamentally cannot define the temperature of a system without referring to what is outside the system (the temperature of a completely isolated system is not undefined, but under this definition, it will be). However, there is no such restriction when we describe temperature practically. Temperature is an absolute quantity (at least classically).

 

[DrClaude]

It means that you fundamentally cannot define the temperature of a system without referring to what is outside the system

For a stricter, stand alone definition, you need to go further and use the equation I posted in #6.

(the temperature of a completely isolated system is not undefined, but under this definition, it will be).

It won't be undefined as you can look at what would happen if the system were to be put into contact with another.

 

[PWiz]

Isn't it circular to define temperature using entropy, when calculating entropy in the first place requires the temperature to be known?
Sorry but it's taking me some time to wrap my head around this

 

[DrClaude]

Isn't it circular to define temperature using entropy, when calculating entropy in the first place requires the temperature to be known?

In statistical mechanics, you have
$$
S = k \ln W
$$
where $W$ is known as the multiplicity of the system. If you can calculate the multiplicity, then you can calculate entropy, completely independently of temperature.

 

[PWiz]

In statistical mechanics, you have
$$
S = k \ln W
$$
where $W$ is known as the multiplicity of the system. If you can calculate the multiplicity, then you can calculate entropy, completely independently of temperature.

So it all boils down to microstate occupation probabilities, right? I'm starting to see a quantum connection here.

 

[sophiecentaur]

Once more, temperature is never defined as the average kinetic energy. In everyday life, temperature is what a thermometer measures.

That sounds a bit strong, bearing in mind that the very first hit I got from Google ("Temperature kinetic energy") was this link. Hyper physics doesn't usually trade in BS.

 

[DrClaude]

That sounds a bit strong, bearing in mind that the very first hit I got from Google ("Temperature kinetic energy") was this link.

The link is broken.

 

[256bits]

Maybe this one
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/kinetic/kintem.html

And,
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/temper.html
which shows some complications using only kinetic energy as the only desigated definition of temperature for heat ransfer.

Seems more complicated than I ever thought it was.

 

[DrClaude]

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/temper.html
which shows some complications using only kinetic energy as the only desigated definition of temperature for heat ransfer.

This is correctly written, but one has to pay attention to all the words:

Clearly, temperature has to do with the kinetic energy of the molecules, and if the molecules act like independent point masses, then we could define temperature in terms of the average translational kinetic energy of the molecules, the so-called "kinetic temperature". The average kinetic energy of the molecules of an object is an important part of the concept of temperature and provides some useful intuition about what temperature is. If all matter just consisted of independently moving point masses that just experienced elastic collisions with each other, that would be an adequate picture of temperature.

(emphasis added)

 

[PWiz]

I guess the difference in the definition is only dependent on whether you choose to describe the system on a microscopic or macroscopic state, and whether the particles in the system exhibit ideal behavior or not.

 

[jtbell]

calculating entropy in the first place requires the temperature to be known?

No. See the equation on Ludwig Boltzmann's gravestone:

(Nowadays I think most textbooks use the symbol Ω instead of W.)

Added: Ugh, I didn't notice the thread has a second page which already gives the equation. Oh well, it's a cool picture anyway.

 

[sophiecentaur]

This is correctly written, but one has to pay attention to all the words:

(emphasis added)

But that's the basis of the Kinetic theory that we all start with. It's only fair tp acknowledge that (albeit with a caveat or two). We discuss Newton's Laws of motion on PF, despite the fact that we know about Relativity.

 

[russ_watters]

But that's the basis of the Kinetic theory that we all start with. It's only fair tp acknowledge that (albeit with a caveat or two). We discuss Newton's Laws of motion on PF, despite the fact that we know about Relativity.

Agreed. DrClaude, what struck me as odd was your initial incredulity on the issue - as if you'd never heard of the connection.

Anyway, i don't see a problem with using kinetic energy as an admittedly limited starting point. Then, you pull out the caveats as needed. To me, it is a lot better than using an empty/circular definition.

 

[DrClaude]

Agreed. DrClaude, what struck me as odd was your initial incredulity on the issue - as if you'd never heard of the connection.

What probably got me started was the use of the the word defined, with emphasis, in PWiz' original reply (and please don't take this personally, PWiz). Temperature has never been defined as such.

But that's the basis of the Kinetic theory that we all start with. It's only fair tp acknowledge that (albeit with a caveat or two). We discuss Newton's Laws of motion on PF, despite the fact that we know about Relativity.

I disagree with your analogy in that historically, temperature was never based on kinetic theory. All of classical thermodynamics and even parts of statistical physics were developed with scientists not even agreeing on the existence of molecules.

Anyway, i don't see a problem with using kinetic energy as an admittedly limited starting point. Then, you pull out the caveats as needed. To me, it is a lot better than using an empty/circular definition.

This entire thread has made me think a lot about how the concept of temperature is taught. I have myself used the simplification that temperature is motion, but I think that at the moment one reaches university level on the subject, this should be abandoned, as my feeling is that it leads to a wrong way of thinking. I have even revisited threads on PF, in particular Can a single atom have a temperature? I agree with Vanadium's answer and more or less disagree with Baluncore answer.

Anyway, my intentions were purely pedagogical, so I hope at least one person reading my posts will have learned something. I hope this didn't go over the head of the OP, and maybe it would be time to close the thread as we have most probably veered off course from the original question.

 

[OmCheeto]

We had a minor run-in with "temperature" over on the latest "Ceres" thread. It was quite enlightening.

This might be a counterexample to sophiecentaur's quote; "The enemy of understanding is classification."
Temperature in the ISM may need a different classification.
I learned long ago that temperature was defined as; "The average internal translational kinetic energy", or something like that.
For solids, liquids, and gasses, this kind of makes sense to me.
It's the average jigglinesss.

I think it started, with a comment about the temperature of outer space, which led me to an interesting thread: Coldness of Space

Where I found that Marcus had described "temperature" as a bunch of photons in a box.

Which, I'm quite sure, is true, also.

 

[PWiz]

so I hope at least one person reading my posts will have learned something.

I did. Thanks for sharing the knowledge!

and please don't take this personally, PWiz).

There is no "I" in objectivity; hopefully, I'll never take these things personally in the future too, because the day I do, I'll stop learning.