Interpretation of temperature in liquids/solids

  • #1
dextercioby
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Insights Author
13,288
1,717
TL;DR Summary
What is the physical interpretation of temperature of a mass of liquid or a solid?
Usually, the mental image of temperature is: an internal property of a bulk of matter, which typically describes the average kinetic plus rotation/vibration energy of molecules, so we imagine a gas in which temperature is a measure of how quick molecules are, and how frequently they collide one to another. The higher the temperature, the more energy of molecules.

Let's switch to a liquid at room temperature (water) or a crystalline solid (a bar of pure iron). How would you define their temperature? Would it for example be a measure of the average energy of the "electron gas" in the conduction band? What about liquid water, which lacks a rigid crystalline structure, being just a scattter of molecules kept together with vdW forces and "hydrogen bonds"?
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
Baluncore
Science Advisor
12,367
6,438
The simplest interpretation is that "temperature is the average KE of the molecules". That may be too simple for some, but once you start considering changes of phase, it becomes complicated. It then requires a deeper energy analysis than simple temperature.
 
  • #3
Lord Jestocost
Gold Member
932
794
TL;DR Summary: What is the physical interpretation of temperature of a mass of liquid or a solid?

Usually, the mental image of temperature is: an internal property of a bulk of matter, which typically describes the average kinetic plus rotation/vibration energy of molecules, so we imagine a gas in which temperature is a measure of how quick molecules are, and how frequently they collide one to another. The higher the temperature, the more energy of molecules.

Let's switch to a liquid at room temperature (water) or a crystalline solid (a bar of pure iron). How would you define their temperature? Would it for example be a measure of the average energy of the "electron gas" in the conduction band? What about liquid water, which lacks a rigid crystalline structure, being just a scattter of molecules kept together with vdW forces and "hydrogen bonds"?
Regarding the "physical interpretation of temperature", I would rely on “An Introduction to Thermal Physics” by Daniel V. Schroeder (Oxford University Press 2021). Schroeder's proposal for a theoretical definition of temperature is:

Temperature is a measure of the tendency of an Object to spontaneously give up energy to its surroundings. When two objects are in thermal contact, the one that tends to spontaneously lose energy is at the higher temperature.

On base of this theoretical definition, one arrives at the thermodynamic definition of temperature:

"The temperature of a system is the reciprocal of the slope of its entropy vs. energy graph. The partial derivative is to be taken with the system's volume and number of particles held fixed;* more explicitly,
$$\frac 1 T\equiv\left( \frac {\partial S} {\partial U}\right)_{N,V} .$$"
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes TeethWhitener, jbriggs444, berkeman and 2 others
  • #4
Vanadium 50
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Education Advisor
29,948
15,645
I think it is better to think of temperature as how it behaves, rather than a "interpretation" in terms of some other quantity. Yes, for a gas, it's average kinetic energy, but lots or things aren't gasses.

Temperature determines the direction of heat flow, from higher temperature to lower temperature,
 
  • #5
Hillbillychemist
15
13
Temperature is the average kinetic energy whether it is expressed as translation as in liquids and gases or vibration in solids.
 
  • #6
DrClaude
Mentor
8,131
4,955
Please, lets get away from the "temperature is kinetic energy" high-school narrative.

The simple picture is
Temperature is a measure of the tendency of an Object to spontaneously give up energy to its surroundings. When two objects are in thermal contact, the one that tends to spontaneously lose energy is at the higher temperature.
 
  • Like
Likes PhDeezNutz, Lord Jestocost, weirdoguy and 1 other person
  • #7
dextercioby
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Insights Author
13,288
1,717
I am sorry, nondisrespect meant, but what makes you think I have not asked about the complicated phenomenological explanation?
 
  • #8
Baluncore
Science Advisor
12,367
6,438
Please, lets get away from the "temperature is kinetic energy" high-school narrative.
How is the energy transferred if it is not by kinetic interaction?
 
  • #9
DrClaude
Mentor
8,131
4,955
How is the energy transferred if it is not by kinetic interaction?
Radiation, for one.
 
  • Like
Likes Klystron and Lord Jestocost
  • #10
DrClaude
Mentor
8,131
4,955
I am sorry, nondisrespect meant, but what makes you think I have not asked about the complicated phenomenological explanation?
My post wasn't addressing the OP. Let me do that now.
Usually, the mental image of temperature is: an internal property of a bulk of matter, which typically describes the average kinetic plus rotation/vibration energy of molecules, so we imagine a gas in which temperature is a measure of how quick molecules are, and how frequently they collide one to another. The higher the temperature, the more energy of molecules.
I would consider the energy to be the "internal property of a bulk of matter." Generally speaking, an increase in temperature mean an increase in energy, but the two things are not the same. This is exemplified by heat capacity: the amount of energy necessary for a certain change in temperature is different fro different substances. Then you also have to account for phase transitions, where a lot of energy can flow without a change in temperature.

This is why I like Schroeder's simple picture of temperature describing the tendency of a thermodynamic system to exchange energy with another.

Let's switch to a liquid at room temperature (water) or a crystalline solid (a bar of pure iron). How would you define their temperature? Would it for example be a measure of the average energy of the "electron gas" in the conduction band? What about liquid water, which lacks a rigid crystalline structure, being just a scattter of molecules kept together with vdW forces and "hydrogen bonds"?
In more complex systems than ideal gases, the energy is distributed among the different degrees of freedom.
 
  • Like
Likes Astronuc and Lord Jestocost
  • #11
fluidistic
Gold Member
3,896
232
I think it is better to think of temperature as how it behaves, rather than a "interpretation" in terms of some other quantity. Yes, for a gas, it's average kinetic energy, but lots or things aren't gasses.

Temperature determines the direction of heat flow, from higher temperature to lower temperature,
That's not as easy as this. Heat can flow in any direction in a solid, and in particular against the direction of hot to cold.

Take Fourier's law q equals -kappa grad T. Then, remember thermoelectricity exists, so consider the generalized Fourier's law q equals -kappa grad T plus ST J. The first term is the usual Fourier's term, the latter is a Peltier heat which exists whenever there is an electric current. S can have either sign, J can have any direction, and S can even be a non symmetric tensor.

That, or consider anisotropic matetials, where kappa is a tensor. Write down Fourier's law under matricial form and you'll get that it's possible for a material to develop a transverse thermal gradient (and so a heat flux in that direction) even though it isn't the hot to cold direction.
 
  • Like
Likes dextercioby
  • #12
Vanadium 50
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Education Advisor
29,948
15,645
It is true that things are complicated. Negative absolute temperatures are another complication. But I think it is better to go from B-level to I-level to A-level definitions than to get to the end before the poster has reached the middle.
 
  • Like
Likes DrClaude and Bystander
  • #13
TeethWhitener
Science Advisor
Gold Member
2,487
2,036
Given that @dextercioby is already an SA/HH and is asking for an intermediate answer, I think really internalizing the definition from @Lord Jestocost ’s post will help immensely. Essentially, it says that if you increase the energy of a system and its entropy only goes up a little bit, then the system has a high temperature. Conversely, if you increase the energy and its entropy goes up a lot, it’s at a low temperature.

If you think of entropy as a function which counts the number of microstates of a macroscopic system, then the above definition has an intuitive interpretation: at very low temperatures, the number of possible microstates is quite low and increasing the energy of the system causes this number to increase rapidly. However, at very high temperatures, the number of possible microstates becomes very large and increasing the energy doesn’t open up as many new microstates proportionally.
 
  • Like
Likes Fra and DrClaude
  • #14
TeethWhitener
Science Advisor
Gold Member
2,487
2,036
Given that @dextercioby is already an SA/HH and is asking for an intermediate answer, I think really internalizing the definition from @Lord Jestocost ’s post will help immensely. Essentially, it says that if you increase the energy of a system and its entropy only goes up a little bit, then the system has a high temperature. Conversely, if you increase the energy and its entropy goes up a lot, it’s at a low temperature.

If you think of entropy as a function which counts the number of microstates of a macroscopic system, then the above definition has an intuitive interpretation: at very low temperatures, the number of possible microstates is quite low and increasing the energy of the system causes this number to increase rapidly. However, at very high temperatures, the number of possible microstates becomes very large and increasing the energy doesn’t open up as many new microstates proportionally.
Taking this a step further, we can see that heat flow from high temperature to low temperature is simply a reflection of the second law of thermodynamics. When an object at high temperature comes into contact with an object at low temperature, the energy flows in the direction in accordance with the second law ##\Delta S\geq0##. Since a change in energy is associated with a much larger change in entropy for low temperature objects than for high temperature objects, the increase in energy will have to happen to the low temperature object in order to be consistent with ##\Delta S\geq0##, so heat will flow from hot to cold.
 
  • #15
Philip Koeck
550
131
Taking this a step further, we can see that heat flow from high temperature to low temperature is simply a reflection of the second law of thermodynamics. When an object at high temperature comes into contact with an object at low temperature, the energy flows in the direction in accordance with the second law ##\Delta S\geq0##. Since a change in energy is associated with a much larger change in entropy for low temperature objects than for high temperature objects, the increase in energy will have to happen to the low temperature object in order to be consistent with ##\Delta S\geq0##, so heat will flow from hot to cold.
Could heat flow from a colder to a warmer object if the warmer object increases the total entropy for example by evaporating.
 
  • #16
DrClaude
Mentor
8,131
4,955
Could heat flow from a colder to a warmer object if the warmer object increases the total entropy for example by evaporating.
No. Of course, the warmer object will see its temperature decrease due to evaporation, and at one point might cool down below the colder object's temperature.
 
  • Like
Likes Lord Jestocost

Suggested for: Interpretation of temperature in liquids/solids

  • Last Post
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
374
Replies
2
Views
466
Replies
2
Views
483
Replies
4
Views
499
Replies
1
Views
438
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
0
Views
554
Replies
5
Views
792
Replies
10
Views
911
Top