Physical Chemistry vs Statistical Mechanics notation

[Simfish]

Are they different in any significant ways? Are they frequently confusing?

For whatever reason, I find pchem books somewhat hard to read (for now) because something with the notation is confusing me. Statistical Mechanics books are much more readable. Okay, for some reason, I understand things much faster if the concepts of extensive and intensive quantities are first differentiated from each other

Although I first learned my thermo from atmospheric science, and I've only really realized that their notation is horribly confusing.

 

[Gokul43201]

I strongly recommend Atkins for a Physical Chemistry text. He often derives chemical concepts from more fundamental ideas via stat mech or quantum mechanics. That necessitates some conformity of notation and conventions.

 

[DrDu]

I rather guess that the book you used for learning physical chemistry was not one of the best. In contrast to Gokul, I strongly disrecommend Atkins as a physical chemistry text :-)
E. g. I remember its derivation of absolute temperature being highly circular, starting from
ideal gas law, introducing entropy and then deriving entropy with respect to energy again.
Personally, I found Moore much more readable.
Obviously there are highly specialized text on chemical thermodynamics as well, e.g. Prigogine, Dufay: Chemical Thermodynamics.
Furthermore, classical thermodynamics and statistical mechanics are seemingly quite different formulations of the same theme and you need to understand both approaches.

 

[Studiot]

For general physchem Moore is the gold standard book.

However his presentation of maths is sometimes not very explanatory, more rabbit out of a hat.

More mathematically rigourous are

Moelwyn Hughes - Physical Chemistry - Oxford
&
Denbeigh - Principles of Chemical Equilibrium - Cambridge

go well

 

[Gokul43201]

I rather guess that the book you used for learning physical chemistry was not one of the best. In contrast to Gokul, I strongly disrecommend Atkins as a physical chemistry text :-)

You are now the second person I've heard with a negative opinion of Atkins. I've used Atkins at two different points in life. In college (freshman year), it was the recommended text for a physical chemistry course. I was using a very early edition and don't recall being impressed. Nearly a decade later, I found a used copy of the most recent edition being sold at an annual library sale for $1. I picked it up and occasionally read some sections here and there, and was quite impressed at the extra lengths it went to compared to other standard chemistry texts I had been used to during my college years.

 

[DrDu]

Well, Atkins must have it's good points, if not it wouldn't sale so well. I don't want to endeavour to formally review it, which would be quite a task if taken seriously.
However, I would like to know which book Simfish is referring to. A book on atmospheric science may not be the best starting point to learn either physical chemistry or statistical mechanics.

 

[Simfish]

Interesting points, everyone.

Well, the atmospheric science book was Wallace and Hobbes. The chemistry book was actually Atkins though. I'm actually finding "Physical Chemistry" (Gilbert Castellan) to be much clearer though - but it's an old book. Has anyone else tried that book?

It's at https://www.amazon.com/dp/0201103869/?tag=pfamazon01-20

 

[DrDu]

I don't know Castellan. However, chemical thermodynamics ( at least at textbook level) has evolved little so that I don't think it's outdated.

 

[Studiot]

The Oxford Chemistry Primers series is always expanding and worth keeping an eye on.

These little books divide chemistry more finely so for instance Statistical thermodynamics is covered in book 58 in the series

Statistical Thermodynamics by A Maczek