Undergrad How is the derivative of an inexact differential defined?

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the differentiation of inexact differentials, specifically dQ, in thermodynamics as presented in Callen's work. It clarifies that differentiating with respect to temperature (T) should be viewed as a ratio of incremental changes rather than a traditional derivative. The equation dQ = TdS does not imply T is constant; rather, T is a function of entropy (S) and volume (V). This relationship is supported by the first law of thermodynamics, which shows that internal energy (U) is a function of S and V. Thus, T can be defined as a derivative of U with respect to S, emphasizing its dependence on system variables.
spin_100
Messages
15
Reaction score
1
IMG_20230914_172646.jpg

This is from Callen's thermodynamics. What does the differentiation with respect to T means for an inexact differential like dQ. Also why is T treated as a constant if we start by replacing dQ by TdS? Any references to the relevant mathematics will be much appreciated.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
spin_100 said:
This is from Callen's thermodynamics. What does the differentiation with respect to T means for an inexact differential like dQ.
I am a little rusty but I think that this should not be interpreted as a differentiation but as a ratio of two incremental changes in values. In this case the change in the heat of a system d'Q * that occurs when the temperature increases by dT at a temperature of T.
\frac{d'Q}{dt }\neq \frac{d}{dt}\left ( Q \right )


* Thermodynamics by Sears always distinguishes inexact differentials with a prime superscript on d indicating a small change in the value of the quantity..
 
gleem said:
this should not be interpreted as a differentiation but as a ratio of two incremental changes in values.
Exactly.
 
spin_100 said:
Also why is T treated as a constant if we start by replacing dQ by TdS?
The formula ##d'Q=TdS## does not imply that ##T## is constant.

For analogy, consider classical mechanics of a particle moving in one dimension. The infinitesimal path ##dx## during the time ##dt## is ##dx=vdt##, but it does not imply that the velocity ##v(t)## is constant. Instead, it means that ##v(t)## is defined as
$$v(t)=\frac{dx(t)}{dt}$$
which physicists write in the infinitesimal form ##dx=vdt##.

Indeed, similarly to ##v##, the ##T## can also be thought of as defined by a derivative formula. But it is not ##T=d'Q/dS## or ##T=dQ/dS##, because such things are not defined as derivatives. Instead, starting from the 1st law of thermodynamics
$$dU=TdS-PdV$$
we see that ##U## must be a function of ##S## and ##V##, because then we have the mathematical identity
$$dU(S,V)=\left( \frac{\partial U(S,V)}{\partial S} \right)_V dS +
\left( \frac{\partial U(S,V)}{\partial V} \right)_S dV$$
which is compatible with the 1st law above. The compatibility implies that ##T## can be defined as
$$T(S,V)=\left( \frac{\partial U(S,V)}{\partial S} \right)_V$$
which is a function of ##S## and ##V##, not a constant.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes vanhees71, gleem and PeroK
There are probably loads of proofs of this online, but I do not want to cheat. Here is my attempt: Convexity says that $$f(\lambda a + (1-\lambda)b) \leq \lambda f(a) + (1-\lambda) f(b)$$ $$f(b + \lambda(a-b)) \leq f(b) + \lambda (f(a) - f(b))$$ We know from the intermediate value theorem that there exists a ##c \in (b,a)## such that $$\frac{f(a) - f(b)}{a-b} = f'(c).$$ Hence $$f(b + \lambda(a-b)) \leq f(b) + \lambda (a - b) f'(c))$$ $$\frac{f(b + \lambda(a-b)) - f(b)}{\lambda(a-b)}...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
319
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
8K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
1K