Maximizing Entropy vs Minimizing Gibbs Function - Why?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Thermodave
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Entropy Gibbs
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the contrasting methods of maximizing entropy versus minimizing Gibbs free energy in thermodynamics. It is established that maximizing the total entropy of the system and reservoir is equivalent to minimizing the Gibbs energy under specific conditions. The choice between these methods depends on constraints such as constant pressure or temperature, which dictate whether Gibbs energy or other potentials like Helmholtz, Energy, or Enthalpy should be used. The relationship between these concepts is crucial for accurately predicting equilibrium concentrations in thermodynamic systems.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Gibbs free energy and its applications
  • Familiarity with the Second Law of Thermodynamics
  • Knowledge of thermodynamic potentials: Helmholtz, Enthalpy, and Internal Energy
  • Basic principles of statistical mechanics and entropy
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation and applications of Gibbs free energy in chemical reactions
  • Explore the Legendre transform and its implications in thermodynamics
  • Investigate the conditions under which different thermodynamic potentials are minimized
  • Read Callen's "Thermodynamics" for a comprehensive understanding of these concepts
USEFUL FOR

This discussion is beneficial for physicists, chemists, and engineers involved in thermodynamics, particularly those focusing on equilibrium systems and energy transformations.

Thermodave
Messages
39
Reaction score
0
It occurs to me that some people create codes to maximize the entropy of a system in order to predict equilibrium concentrations. However, others minimize the Gibbs function. I understand the relationship, so why the two methods? Aren't these results always the same? Is there a practical reason for this?
 
Science news on Phys.org
There is a difference in what these energy apply to.

Basically maximizing the total entropy of system+reservoir is (under special circumstances only!) equivalent to minimizing the Gibbs energy of the system alone.

It is incorrect to minimize the entropy of the system alone. Also the contraints (pressure or temperature kept constant?) matter for the decision whether to use Gibbs energy or one of the other three potentials (Helmholtz, Energy, Enthalpy).
 
Last edited:
Gerenuk said:
There is a difference in what these energy apply to.

Basically minimizing the total entropy of system+reservoir is (under special circumstances only!) equivalent to minimizing the Gibbs energy of the system alone.

It is incorrect to minimize the entropy of the system alone. Also the contraints (pressure or temperature kept constant?) matter for the decision whether to use Gibbs energy or one of the other three potentials (Helmholtz, Energy, Enthalpy).

Surely you mean maximize entropy?

We start with the differential expression for energy, dU=T\,dS-P\,dV+\sum_i \mu_i\,dN_i+\dots. For systems at constant entropy, volume, and mass (and all other extensive variables constant), we minimize the potential U (the internal energy).

We can rewrite the equation as -dS=-1/T\,dU-P/T\,dV+\sum_i \mu_i/T\,dN_i+\dots. So for systems at constant energy, volume, and mass, we maximize the potential S (the entropy).

We can always derive various different potentials for variations on the system. If the entropy, pressure, and mass are constant, for example, we use the Legendre transform H=U+PV to get dH=-T\,dS-V\,dP+\sum_i \mu_i\,dN_i. Thus, we minimize the enthalpy H for these systems.

If the temperature, pressure, and mass are constant (a frequent scenario), we minimize the Gibbs potential G=U+PV-TS. If the temperature, volume, and chemical potential of species i are constant, we minimize the potential \Lambda=U-TS-\mu_i N_i. And so on.

Callen's Thermodynamics has a nice discussion of this. It all comes from the tendency for total entropy to be maximized (i.e., Second Law).
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
10K