How deep does thermodynamics go? And how much would a chemist know?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on the accessibility of non-equilibrium thermodynamics research for chemistry majors. The original poster expresses interest in this field due to ongoing research at their college and seeks to understand how their chemistry background can facilitate entry into this area. They question whether thermodynamics is primarily a physics domain or if their physical chemistry classes provide a sufficient foundation for research. Participants suggest that many researchers successfully transition into fields outside their major through self-study, indicating that chemists may have a strong grasp of thermodynamics. They encourage the poster to engage with faculty members for guidance on relevant coursework and to express their interest, emphasizing that proactive communication can enhance opportunities in research. Overall, the conversation highlights the interdisciplinary nature of thermodynamics and the potential for chemistry students to contribute to this evolving field.
somefellasomewhere
Messages
10
Reaction score
1
TL;DR Summary: I'm trying to understand what research fields I would have access to as a person who's majoring in chemistry. So how deep does thermodynamics go and how much of a foothold could I get into research on it as someone who's majoring in chemistry? Or is it really only accessible to physics majors? (non-equilibrium thermo, don't know if that makes a difference) I ask because there is a research group on non-equilibrium systems at the college I'm attending.

I'm trying to understand what research fields I would have access to as a person who's majoring in chemistry, and non-equilibrium thermodynamics has caught my attention since some professors at my college are doing research on it. I'm not at all educated on the topic, but it seems to have interesting applications in chemical kinetics and biology and I'm wondering if I would have access to the field as someone majoring in chemistry?

Thermodynamics seems to be an bottomless well of knowledge, so would this field be more favorable towards people trained in physics? Or would my pchem classes allow me a foothold in this area of research?

Also, what does the landscape of thermodynamics as a subject look like? I know there is some pretty set in stone classical understandings of the field, but statistical mechanics (whatever that is, again very clueless here) and this non-linear/non-equilibrium thermodynamics seems to present a new frontier of knowledge. Is that correct? Specifically in regards to non-equilibrium thermodynamics, do these systems present themselves more often in applications of thermodynamics (and would it follow that someone could get a foothold without formal training in physics?), or is it a central idea in and of itself?

Sorry if this is incoherent nonsense, or founded on naivety, but I'm trying to understand what career/academic options I have.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
somefellasomewhere said:
I ask because there is a research group on non-equilibrium systems at the college I'm attending.
You should ask them, possibly in person. Not only will you get good advice, but it'll also put you on their radar as someone who's interested and asks good questions. In general, things are more fluid (pun intended) at the research level; many researchers self study their way to competency in fields which they didn't major in.
 
Some argue that chemists/chemical engineers have a better understanding of thermodynamics than physicists.
 
  • Informative
  • Like
Likes vanhees71 and symbolipoint
Frabjous said:
Some argue that chemists/chemical engineers have a better understanding of thermodynamics than physicists.
..., plus or minus sign conventions regarding positive/negative work.
 
Bystander said:
..., plus or minus sign conventions regarding positive/negative work.
Even within physics, major texts use different conventions for this.
 
Muu9 said:
You should ask them, possibly in person. Not only will you get good advice, but it'll also put you on their radar as someone who's interested and asks good questions. In general, things are more fluid (pun intended) at the research level; many researchers self study their way to competency in fields which they didn't major in.
I will do this, but I don't want to seem arrogant or imposing. I might wait before I've had at least some prerequisite math and science before I go about pretending I can understand their field.
 
somefellasomewhere said:
I will do this, but I don't want to seem arrogant or imposing. I might wait before I've had at least some prerequisite math and science before I go about pretending I can understand their field.
Why wait? Ask them for suggestions on the math and science courses you should be taking. FWIW, I majored in physics, both as an undergrad and grad. In addition to the thermodynamics and statistical mechanics classes in the physics department, I also took thermodynamics classes (undergrad and grad) in the materials science and engineering department. Coincidentally, the classes in the materials science and engineering departments (different schools for undergrad and grad) were taught by professors with chemistry degrees.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71 and berkeman
Back
Top