Derive the density relation to thermal expansion

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on deriving the density relation to thermal expansion, specifically demonstrating that the equation \(\frac{d\rho }{\rho } = - \beta dT\) follows from \(\frac{dV}{V} = \beta dT\). A participant struggles with the mathematical process, initially arriving at \(\frac{d\rho }{\rho _{1}} = - \beta dT\) instead of the desired equation. The conversation highlights the importance of approximating \(\rho _{1}\) as \(\rho + d\rho\) and dismissing the product \(\rho d\rho\) as negligible when \(d\rho\) is much smaller than \(\rho\).

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of thermal expansion and the coefficient of volumetric thermal expansion (\(\beta\))
  • Familiarity with basic calculus, particularly differentiation
  • Knowledge of density and its relationship to volume and mass
  • Proficiency in LaTeX for mathematical notation
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation of the volumetric thermal expansion formula
  • Learn about the implications of small perturbations in density and volume
  • Explore the concept of linear approximations in calculus
  • Practice using LaTeX for clearer mathematical communication
USEFUL FOR

Students in physics or engineering, particularly those studying thermodynamics, as well as educators looking to clarify concepts related to thermal expansion and density relationships.

Ryker
Messages
1,080
Reaction score
2

Homework Statement


Show that it follows from

\frac{dV}{V} = \beta dT

that, for small changes, density has a similar linear relationship to thermal expansion, namely

\frac{d\rho }{\rho } = - \beta dT

Homework Equations


The Attempt at a Solution


Well, at first glance this one seems ridiculously simple, but I tried setting up dV as V_{1} - V, then inserting V_{1} = \frac{m}{\rho _{1}} and similar for V, but when I go through the whole mathematical process that leaves me with the following equation:

\frac{d\rho }{\rho _{1}} = - \beta dT

as opposed to:

\frac{d\rho }{\rho } = - \beta dT

I'm not that good with LaTeX, so I haven't sketched the whole mathematical process I went through - there's not much to it anyway, to be honest - but does someone know what one needs to do to get the proper equation and where I went wrong? Is there some trick to it that I'm missing?

The final result for dV is namely

\frac{-md\rho }{\rho \rho _{1}}

and I was wondering if you could express \rho _{1} = \rho + d\rho, multiply and then dismiss the product \rho d\rho as so small as to be irrelevant. Then you would namely get the right result, but I'm not that sure that product really is that small in comparison to the other one.

And sorry for any screw-ups in LaTeX, like I mentioned I'm not well versed in it (yet) and I needed almost half an hour to type even this up.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
When d\rho << \rho, you can write: \rho _1 \approx \rho :wink:
 
God damn it, and this is something I literally lose hours over, despairing how stupid I am to not be able to get the right solution and lose motivation to do the stuff altogether! Thanks to you I can now finally get back to work, though :smile:
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
11
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
13
Views
2K