Deriving general specific heat capacity formula

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the derivation of the specific heat capacity formula, questioning the physical meaning of the differential heat transfer, ΔQ. Participants debate whether ΔQ, as an incremental change, is meaningful compared to the total heat transfer Q, with some arguing that it represents a negligible change in the system's state. The conversation highlights that specific heats are defined in terms of derivatives of internal energy or entropy, rather than heat, suggesting a nuanced understanding of these concepts. There is also a concern about the validity of using heat as a state variable in derivations. Overall, the thread explores the complexities of defining and deriving specific heat in thermodynamics.
member 731016
Homework Statement
Please see below
Relevant Equations
Please see below
For this,
1681169914989.png

Dose anybody please know of a better way to derive the formula without having ##c = \frac{\Delta Q}{m \Delta T}## then taking the limit of both sides at ##\Delta T## approaches zero? I thought ##\Delta Q## like ##\Delta W## was not physically meaningful since by definition ##Q## is the heat transfer.

Many thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
ChiralSuperfields said:
I thought ##\Delta Q## like ##\Delta W## was not physically meaningful since by definition ##Q## is the heat transfer.
Do you think that ##Q## is physically meaningful?
 
  • Like
Likes member 731016
kuruman said:
Do you think that ##Q## is physically meaningful?
Thank you for your reply @kuruman!

Yes I do, since it is the quantity of heat transferred.

Many thanks!
 
ChiralSuperfields said:
Thank you for your reply @kuruman!

Yes I do, since it is the quantity of heat transferred.

Many thanks!
Well, ##Q##, which is physically meaningful, is not transferred instantaneously all at once but in increments ##\Delta Q##. Why is ##Q## meaningful but not an element ##\Delta Q## that is part of it? BTW, the same reasoning applies to ##\Delta W.##
 
  • Like
Likes member 731016
kuruman said:
Well, ##Q##, which is physically meaningful, is not transferred instantaneously all at once but in increments ##\Delta Q##. Why is ##Q## meaningful but not an element ##\Delta Q## that is part of it? BTW, the same reasoning applies to ##\Delta W.##
Thank you for your reply @kuruman!

So could we think of the heat transferred as the summation of the differential heat elements ##dQ## which I think leads to ##Q = \int dQ##.

However, back to the algebra way of thinking, is the reason why the heat element ##\Delta Q## is not meaningful because it is causes a differential change in the state of the system that can be considered negligible?

Many thanks!
 
ChiralSuperfields said:
Thank you for your reply @kuruman!

So could we think of the heat transferred as the summation of the differential heat elements ##dQ## which I think leads to ##Q = \int dQ##.

However, back to the algebra way of thinking, is the reason why the heat element ##\Delta Q## is not meaningful because it is causes a differential change in the state of the system that can be considered negligible?

Many thanks!
Why do you insist ##\Delta Q## is not meaningful? In post #3 you agreed that it is.
 
  • Like
Likes member 731016
kuruman said:
Why do you insist ##\Delta Q## is not meaningful? In post #3 you agreed that it is.
Thank you for your reply @kuruman!

Yeah I guess it is meaningful if we think of it has a differential heat element not as ##Q_f - Q_i## which cannot be true since heat is state variable.

Many thanks!
 
The specific heats are defined in terms of derivatives of intenal energy or entropy not of heat. And as definitions, they cannot be proven.
The heat is not a function of state so using the derivative of heat in respect to temperature it may be a little hand waving.
 
  • Like
Likes member 731016
nasu said:
The specific heats are defined in terms of derivatives of intenal energy or entropy not of heat. And as definitions, they cannot be proven.
The heat is not a function of state so using the derivative of heat in respect to temperature it may be a little hand waving.
Thank you for your reply @nasu!

That is very interesting what you mention. Sorry I did quite get the bit I put it italic above. I don't understand the bit about hand waving. Is it still correct what the textbook did?

Many thanks!
 
Back
Top