Isn't this spooky variable a problem?

  • Thread starter Thread starter nonequilibrium
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Variable
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the transition from volumetric work to the concepts of enthalpy (H), Helmholtz free energy (F), and Gibbs free energy (G) in thermodynamics. It raises concerns about the implications of introducing additional variables that could affect entropy and the fundamental energy identity, particularly in the context of the equation dE = TdS - PdV. The need to identify all relevant variables is emphasized, suggesting that once these are defined, the allowed states should be unique. The conversation also touches on the relationship between entropy and these additional variables, questioning whether previously established formulas remain valid. Ultimately, the discussion highlights the complexity of thermodynamic systems and the importance of accurately accounting for all variables in energy calculations.
nonequilibrium
Messages
1,412
Reaction score
2
So in my first four chapters of Thermo we basically said U(S,V,N), same old, same old, all work was purely volumetric.

Now in chapter five we discuss H, F, G and for example, delta(G) basically tells you how much work is still available in the process after deducting the required volumetric work on the environment and the required heat. But... can we say 'there can be more work done'? There aren't any other variables in our system! Some undefined variable out there can just take our work? How do I know my entropy, for example, is not dependent on that variable that suddenly exists? This doesn't seem kosher, does it?

EDIT: for example, dE = TdS - PdV was derived in the assumption there is no other work possible than volumetric work. So you even lose the fundamental identity... Are all these things just ignored? Is my book just bad? Am I overlooking something?...

EDIT2: Well to fix that I suppose you can implicitly assume dE = TdS - PdV + XdY, but that would also imply S is dependent of Y. But what if we already deduced a formula for S independent of Y, isn't that in contradiction with \left( \frac{dS}{dY} \right)_{E,V} = - \frac{X}{T}?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
I haven't analyzed the question deeply, but I think this might help for a start:
You indeed need to add XdY. In fact, it is your job to first identify all required variables X/Y. Once these variables are kept at given values, the allowed states must be unique! That's how you know if you are done finding all variables. The energy of this state is what is called "heat". It can be a set of states transforming into each other, but they may not have separate subgroups for the dynamics.

but that would also imply S is dependent of Y
No, it doesn't. One of the variables depends on all the other independent variables, but it is your choice which ones to take as independent.
 
Hello! Let's say I have a cavity resonant at 10 GHz with a Q factor of 1000. Given the Lorentzian shape of the cavity, I can also drive the cavity at, say 100 MHz. Of course the response will be very very weak, but non-zero given that the Loretzian shape never really reaches zero. I am trying to understand how are the magnetic and electric field distributions of the field at 100 MHz relative to the ones at 10 GHz? In particular, if inside the cavity I have some structure, such as 2 plates...
Back
Top