Partial differentiation: thermodynamic relations

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

This question involves the entropy of magnetic salts and the application of partial differentiation in thermodynamic relations. The original poster attempts to relate changes in entropy to changes in the applied magnetic field without performing integration.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the use of a differential form to express changes in entropy and question the validity of approximations made without integration. There is exploration of Taylor expansion as a method to approximate entropy changes.

Discussion Status

Some participants have provided clarifications regarding the use of differentials and the implications of holding temperature constant. There is an ongoing examination of the steps taken by the original poster and the accuracy of their reasoning.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the original poster's approach may be an approximation and question the assumptions made regarding the relationship between entropy and the magnetic field.

unscientific
Messages
1,728
Reaction score
13

Homework Statement



This question is about entropy of magnetic salts. I got up to the point of finding H1, the final applied field.


The Attempt at a Solution





But instead of doing integration I used this:

dS = (∂S/∂H)*dH

= (M0/4α)(ln 4)2


I removed the negative sign because they wanted decrease in S.


I know integration is the sure-fire way to get Sinitial - Sfinal but why is this method wrong? Is it because this method is only an approximation?
 

Attachments

  • entropy.jpg
    entropy.jpg
    18.3 KB · Views: 445
Physics news on Phys.org
unscientific said:
But instead of doing integration I used this:

dS = (∂S/∂H)*dH

= (M0/4α)(ln 4)2 I removed the negative sign because they wanted decrease in S.I know integration is the sure-fire way to get Sinitial - Sfinal but why is this method wrong? Is it because this method is only an approximation?

I'm not sure exactly what you'e done here. dH is a differential, so it makes no sense to say that \left( \frac{ \partial S}{ \partial H } \right)_{T} dH = \frac{M_0}{4\alpha}\ln(4)^2.

If you Taylor expand S(H, T) around the point H=0, holding T constant. then to first order you get

S(H_1, T) \approx \left. \left. \left( \frac{ \partial S}{ \partial H } \right)_{T} \right. \right|_{H=H_1} \cdot (H_1-0)= \frac{M_0}{4\alpha}\ln(4)^2

but that is only a first order approximation.
 
gabbagabbahey said:
I'm not sure exactly what you'e done here. dH is a differential, so it makes no sense to say that \left( \frac{ \partial S}{ \partial H } \right)_{T} dH = \frac{M_0}{4\alpha}\ln(4)^2.

If you Taylor expand S(H, T) around the point H=0, holding T constant. then to first order you get

S(H_1, T) \approx \left. \left. \left( \frac{ \partial S}{ \partial H } \right)_{T} \right. \right|_{H=H_1} \cdot (H_1-0)= \frac{M_0}{4\alpha}\ln(4)^2

but that is only a first order approximation.

What I meant was:

dS = (∂S/∂H)*dH + (∂S/∂T)dT

But since dT = 0 since T is kept constant,

dS = (∂S/∂H)*dH
 
unscientific said:
What I meant was:

dS = (∂S/∂H)*dH + (∂S/∂T)dT

But since dT = 0 since T is kept constant,

dS = (∂S/∂H)*dH

That's completely correct, but how did you get from that to (M0/4α)(ln 4)2?
 

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K