(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({}); 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].

Thus,

[tex]G=N\mu[/tex]

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]

Thus,

[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!?!!

**Physics Forums | Science Articles, Homework Help, Discussion**

Dismiss Notice

Join Physics Forums Today!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# Gibbs energy=chem potential (not convinced)

**Physics Forums | Science Articles, Homework Help, Discussion**