Is dn = dS = 0 when two phases are equilibrium?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Philethan
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Equilibrium Phases
AI Thread Summary
In phase equilibrium, the differentials of state variables such as entropy, internal energy, volume, and particle number are not necessarily zero, as the system can still undergo changes while remaining in equilibrium. The discussion emphasizes that phase equilibrium is a specific case of thermodynamic equilibrium, where conditions like temperature, pressure, and chemical potential must be equal across phases. The definition of equilibrium is clarified as a state where the system's entropy is maximized, particularly in isolated systems. It is noted that while phases can coexist, they can still exchange energy and matter, indicating that thermodynamic equilibrium encompasses more than just phase equilibrium. Overall, the conversation highlights the nuanced relationship between phase and thermodynamic equilibrium in thermodynamics.
Philethan
Messages
34
Reaction score
4
Hello, every one! I'm studying the Section 9.2 - Phase Equilibrium of "Classical and Statistical Thermodynamics" written by Carter.

In equation (9.21) and (9.22)

He said:

dS_{A}=\frac{1}{T_{A}}(dU_{A}+P_{A}dV_{A}-\mu _{A}dn_{A})-----(9.21)

dS_{B}=\frac{1}{T_{B}}(dU_{B}+P_{B}dV_{B}-\mu _{B}dn_{B})-----(9.22)

I think dS and differentials of all other state variables should be zero! That is, dSA=dSB=dnA=dnB=dVA=dVB=...=0

Is it correct? If it's correct, then I cannot get the following conclusions which needs to assume those increments dUA,dVA,dnA,... could be arbitrary.

TA = TB (thermal equilibrium)
PA = PB (mechanical equilibrium)
μA = μB (diffusive equilibrium)

Thanks in advance!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
No, why should these differential be constant?
 
DrDu said:
No, why should these differential be constant?
It's due to the definition of equilibrium. In other words, if those macroscopic state variables are not constant, then it's not at equilibrium.
For example, if the color of the solution is changing, then it's not at equilibrium.

I don't know why I was wrong..
 
But e.g. you can have a mixture of ice and water and even if some of the ice is melting (i.e. both the amount of ice and water is changing), the two are in equilibrium.
 
  • Like
Likes Philethan
Really? Even if some of the ice is melting, the two are still in equilibrium?
So... What's the definition of equilibrium? It seems that the exact definition of equilibrium is "the system is at equilibrium if and only if its entropy is a maximum".

Is that correct?

Thank you very much :)
 
I think DD is straying somewhat. A phase equilibrium is not enough for a thermodynamic equilibrium: matter and energy can still flow macroscopically.
So I'm siding with PhE post #5.
However, physics isn't a democratic thingy, so if someone knows better, I'm eager to be put right !
 
  • Like
Likes Philethan
BvU said:
I think DD is straying somewhat. A phase equilibrium is not enough for a thermodynamic equilibrium: matter and energy can still flow macroscopically.
I'd rather say that phase equilibrium is a special case of thermodynamic equilibrium.
 
Philethan said:
Really? Even if some of the ice is melting, the two are still in equilibrium?
At equilibrium, the system is insensitive to changes in particle number of the two phases.

So... What's the definition of equilibrium? It seems that the exact definition of equilibrium is "the system is at equilibrium if and only if its entropy is a maximum".

Is that correct?

Thank you very much :)
This depends on the system. Is it thermally isolated or constant temperature, constant volume or constant pressure. E.g. at constant temperature and pressure, free enthalpy has to be maximal, not entropy. Which case is your book considering?
 
We aren't making progress here if I rather say that thermodynamic equilibrium is a special case of phase equilibrium, namely phase equilibrium plus constant P, U, G, A, H, S etc... :smile:
 
  • #10
I don't know what you have in mind, but in equilibrium thermodynamics (I suppose we are talking about this) we are considering only thermodynamic equilibrium states. E.g. considering the state diagram of water as a function of p and T, there is one line where both phases are in equilibrium. In this sense, phase equilibria are a subset of thermodynamic equilibria.
 
  • #11
DrDu said:
in equilibrium thermodynamics (I suppose we are talking about this) we are considering only thermodynamic equilibrium states
Somewhat circular, to me that seems.

The 'subset' issue is a matter of language, it seems to me. I think we agree: phase equilibrium isn't thermodynamic equilibrium, but thermodynamic equilibrium is phase equilibrium.

(The "fruit isn't orange but orange is fruit" comes to mind. For me that makes oranges a subset of fruit. Not the other way around).

Yet another approach: there are a lot more phase equilibria than thermodynamic equilibria. A TE is a PE with some extra restrictions. So TE is a subset of PE.

DrDu said:
considering the state diagram of water as a function of p and T, there is one line where both phases are in equilibrium
If a system is moving back and forth over this line where both phases are in equilibrium, I can not consider that system to be in thermodynamic equilibrium: T changes. [edit] woops, V changes.
 
Last edited:
  • #12
Philethan said:
It seems that the exact definition of equilibrium is "the system is at equilibrium if and only if its entropy is a maximum".
This is true if the system is isolated and there is also no work done on the overall system. Then it is clear that ##dU_B=-dU_A##, ##dV_B=-dV_A## and ##dn_B=-dn_A## as total internal energy, volume and particle number of the two phases taken together is constant. As total S is maximal, we can write ##0=\partial S/\partial U_A=1/T_A-1/T_B##, so that ##T_A=T_B##. Analogous equations hold for p and ##
mu##.
 
  • #13
DrDu said:
This is true if the system is isolated and there is also no work done on the overall system. Then it is clear that ##dU_B=-dU_A##, ##dV_B=-dV_A## and ##dn_B=-dn_A## as total internal energy, volume and particle number of the two phases taken together is constant. As total S is maximal, we can write ##0=\partial S/\partial U_A=1/T_A-1/T_B##, so that ##T_A=T_B##. Analogous equations hold for p and ##
mu##.
Yes. I think this is more like what the original question was getting at. The idea is to look at the combined system in a situation where the combination is isolated.
 
  • Like
Likes BvU

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top