1. Limited time only! Sign up for a free 30min personal tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Gibbs energy=chem potential (not convinced)

  1. Mar 3, 2007 #1
    Gibbs energy=chem potential (solved)

    my thermal book gives a hand-waving argument saying the followings:
    firstly, Gibbs energy, defined by:
    [tex]G\equiv U+PV-TS[/tex]

    is an extensive quantity (proportional to N), and also
    [tex]\left (\frac{\partial G}{\partial N}\right ) _{T,P}=\mu[/tex]

    so far so good, but then it says:

    if P and T are held constant then [itex]\mu[/itex] is also constant, which implies whenever a particle is added to the system, G is increased by [itex]\mu[/itex].


    But why must [itex]\mu[/itex] be solely dependent on T and V??? why can't [itex]\mu[/itex] depend on.. let's say N? is there any algebraic prove for that?

    edit: oh yeah I see... the book skips a very Very important reason of why it works!!!
    since V, S and U are also extensive,
    [tex]V\sim N[/tex]
    [tex]S\sim N[/tex]
    [tex]U\sim N[/tex]

    [tex]\left (\frac{\partial G}{\partial N}\right ) _{T,P}=\mu=
    \frac{\partial U}{\partial N}+P\frac{\partial V}{\partial N}-T\frac{\partial S}{\partial N}[/tex]

    and each of the three partial derivatives is independent of N since V, S and U are directly related to N...

    don't you just hate it when books make some non-rigorous arguments, left out the important details and act as if the things are obvious and trivial!?!!
    Last edited: Mar 3, 2007
  2. jcsd
  3. Mar 4, 2007 #2
    But what they did is entirely correct. I can always rewrite the chemical potential as a function of other intensive/extensive variables because of the existence of equations of state.
  4. Mar 4, 2007 #3
    you can prove it rigorously, without reference to the macroscopic thermodynamics, by finding [tex]<N>\mu[/tex] in the grand canonical ensemble.
  5. Mar 5, 2007 #4
    really...? I'm interested... can you provide more details please? I would really love a rigorous argument on this problem.

    so, how would you go from the definition of G and mu??
  6. Mar 5, 2007 #5
    I'm intrigued, since I've never seen this done before. I've always seen, starting from the microcanonical ensemble, a derivation that leads to something that we recognize as F or some such, and then that's the connection to thermodynamics.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook