Photons and zero chemical potential ?

AI Thread Summary
In a photon gas in equilibrium with a material cavity, the chemical potential is zero because the number of photons is not conserved; they can be easily created and destroyed. This contrasts with hydrogen and oxygen, which maintain a conserved number during chemical reactions, thus not resulting in a zero chemical potential. The discussion highlights that while photons can be produced in processes like photochemical reactions, their behavior in thermal equilibrium is unique. The argument that photons are "easily created and destroyed" is insufficient to explain their zero chemical potential in all contexts. Understanding the specific conditions of thermal equilibrium is essential to grasp why photon gases differ from other substances regarding chemical potential.
smallphi
Messages
436
Reaction score
2
Consider a photon gas in equilibrium with a material cavity (something like a furnace). Why exacly the chemical potential of those photons is zero?

The usual handwaving argument is 'because photons are easily created and destroyed' whatever that means. Hydrogen and Oxygen are 'easily created and destroyed' too in the chemical reaction H2 + O2 = H2O but we don't set their chemical potential to zero.

So what is your explanation?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
smallphi said:
Consider a photon gas in equilibrium with a material cavity (something like a furnace). Why exacly the chemical potential of those photons is zero?

The usual handwaving argument is 'because photons are easily created and destroyed' whatever that means. Hydrogen and Oxygen are 'easily created and destroyed' too in the chemical reaction H2 + O2 = H2O but we don't set their chemical potential to zero.

So what is your explanation?

Your comparison here makes no sense. The oxygen and hydrogen atoms are NOT destroyed when they form a molecule. But the photon number is not a conserved number in such statistics.

Zz.
 
Photons produced in photochemical reactions like in a light emitting diode don't have zero chemical potential. I am trying to understand why the handwaving 'argument' that photons are 'easily created and destroyed' doesn't work in that case. What is so special about the photon gas in thermal equilibrium that it is the only light with zero chemical potential.


References:

F. Herrmann, P. Wurfel, "Light with nonzero chemical potential", American Journal of Physics -- August 2005 -- Volume 73, Issue 8, pp. 717-721
http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=AJPIAS000073000008000717000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes


Time-dependent and steady-state statistics of photons at nonzero chemical potential, V Badescu 1991 J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 3 6509-6521 http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0953-8984/3/33/025
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'
Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...
Back
Top