Chemical Potential Homework: Ideal Monatomic Gas

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of chemical potential in the context of an ideal monatomic gas. The original poster questions the validity of using the internal energy equation \( U = \frac{3}{2}NkT \) to derive the chemical potential, specifically why this approach leads to an incorrect result.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to understand the limitations of using the internal energy equation to derive chemical potential. Some participants explore the need to hold certain variables, such as entropy and volume, constant during differentiation. Others suggest that the presence of temperature in the equation complicates the relationship.

Discussion Status

The discussion is ongoing, with participants providing insights into the thermodynamic identity related to internal energy and chemical potential. There is recognition of the original poster's intuition regarding the derivative approach, and some guidance has been offered regarding the conditions under which the partial derivative should be taken.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the variables of entropy and volume must be considered when discussing the chemical potential, indicating that the original poster's approach may not account for these constraints adequately.

Crush1986
Messages
205
Reaction score
10

Homework Statement


I just have a question about chemical potential for ideal monatomic gas. I see that by definition \mu = \frac{\partial U}{\partial N}

Homework Equations


\mu = \frac{\partial U}{\partial N}

The Attempt at a Solution


I was wondering why it is wrong to use U=3/2NkT take the partial with respect to N and get \mu = 3/2kT.

I know this isn't right, but what is exactly wrong with it?

The correct equation for the chemical potential of a monatomic ideal gas by the way is
\mu = -kT \ln({\frac{V}{N}(\frac{4 \pi mU}{3h^2}})^\frac{3}{2})[/B]
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
I'm thinking there is something to do with the variables that need to be held fixed, they are entropy and volume. Does 3/2NkT somehow not keep these values fixed maybe?
 
Crush1986 said:
I'm thinking there is something to do with the variables that need to be held fixed, they are entropy and volume. Does 3/2NkT somehow not keep these values fixed maybe?
Indeed. You need to start from the thermodynamic identity
$$
dU = T dS - PdV + \mu dN
$$
from which you will see that
$$
\mu = \left( \frac{\partial U}{\partial N} \right)_{S,V}
$$
 
DrClaude said:
Indeed. You need to start from the thermodynamic identity
$$
dU = T dS - PdV + \mu dN
$$
from which you will see that
$$
\mu = \left( \frac{\partial U}{\partial N} \right)_{S,V}
$$

Yes, I most definitely see that.

My biggest issue right now is why is it not correct to use U=\frac {f}{2}NkT take that partial with respect to N and obtain an answer? My thought is that this equation doesn't hold S and V constant inherently, but how would I see that? Just that fact that T is in the equation maybe?
 
Yes, you would have a term in ##\partial T / \partial N## in there.
 
DrClaude said:
Yes, you would have a term in ##\partial T / \partial N## in there.
Thank you very much. Little simple things like this keep holding me up a little. Hopefully my math skills tighten up in these last few years of my undergraduate studies.
 
You can take comfort in the fact that you had the right intuition as to why simply taking the derivative of U didn't work. The more you use math, the better your skills.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K