Does the kinetic theory work for solids?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the applicability of kinetic theory to solids, particularly in the context of thermodynamic properties such as enthalpy and internal energy when a solid, specifically a lump of iron, is warmed. Participants explore whether the principles derived from kinetic theory for gases can be extended to solids, considering the differences in molecular interactions and behavior.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • James questions whether the relationships from kinetic theory, such as pV/T being constant, apply to solids, particularly regarding pressure and volume changes.
  • Some participants argue that the assumptions of kinetic theory, which hold for gases, do not apply to solids due to factors like strong intermolecular forces and close molecular packing.
  • Another participant emphasizes that as molecules in a gas are compressed and start to interact, internal energy transitions to potential energy, which is significant in solids and liquids.
  • There is a suggestion for James to review the assumptions of kinetic theory and assess their validity for solids.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally disagree on the applicability of kinetic theory to solids, with some asserting that the foundational assumptions do not hold true, while others seek to explore the implications of these assumptions further.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights limitations in the assumptions of kinetic theory when applied to solids, particularly regarding molecular interactions and energy forms, but does not resolve these issues.

Jamessamuel
Messages
45
Reaction score
0
Hello all,

i have been asked a question about a lump of iron being warmed, and to calculate the difference between enthalpy and internal energy. I did some algebra and found that the change in the product pV , in the case of a liquid would suffice. But, since the volume doesn't change (Assumed, still solid) the change is down to the pressure. Now, for a gas, pV/T is a constant so i would argue that if T increases, p should increase. But does this whole idea work for a solid? does it exert a pressure, and does it manifest in such a form that my fluid derivations (pV/T = constant) hold for said solid?

Regards,

James.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Don't think so. A lot of things that hold true for gases such as weak attractive forces, large intermolecular distances etc. just aren't true for solids. So the same laws don't apply.
 
Just look at the assumptions that are the basis of simple Kinetic Theory. The gas laws, based on simple kinetic theory, fail as soon as the molecules start to interact (as the gas is more and more compressed). Once that happens, some of the internal energy takes the form of Potential Energy (bonds stretching and compressing; referred to as Van der Waall's forces etc.). In a solid or liquid, this is a massive factor as the molecules are all so close together.
 
Jamessamuel said:
Hello all,

i have been asked a question about a lump of iron being warmed, and to calculate the difference between enthalpy and internal energy. I did some algebra and found that the change in the product pV , in the case of a liquid would suffice. But, since the volume doesn't change (Assumed, still solid) the change is down to the pressure. Now, for a gas, pV/T is a constant so i would argue that if T increases, p should increase. But does this whole idea work for a solid? does it exert a pressure, and does it manifest in such a form that my fluid derivations (pV/T = constant) hold for said solid?

Regards,

James.

As has been eluded to, you should have learned about the assumptions of the kinetic theory of gases. So look at them and figure out how many of those assumptions are not valid for a solid. Have you done this?

If you have, and it still doesn't answer your question, then please explain why you think all of the assumptions are still valid for a solid.

Zz.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
5K
  • · Replies 77 ·
3
Replies
77
Views
6K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
20K
  • · Replies 41 ·
2
Replies
41
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
4K
  • · Replies 48 ·
2
Replies
48
Views
5K