1. Limited time only! Sign up for a free 30min personal tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Quantum Um vs Classical Um

  1. Sep 18, 2013 #1
    1. The problem statement, all variables and given/known data

    I'm so confused please help :\

    Show that the contribution to the total energy from molar internal energy Um reverts to the classical expression at high T.

    2. Relevant equations

    Classical: Um = 3NakT Quantum Um = 3NAhv/e^(hv/kT)-1

    3. The attempt at a solution

    Manipulating variables- E=hv
    Quantum rearranging: hv/kT= ln(3Nahv)-ln(Um)
    Very confused on what is meant by total energy though. Is that supposed to be E+Um?
    Last edited: Sep 18, 2013
  2. jcsd
  3. Sep 18, 2013 #2
    Pardon my ignorance (I have never heard of this in all my years in physics), but what is Um?
  4. Sep 18, 2013 #3
    My teacher said it was "internal energy, U" but while in the context of the failures of classical physics in terms of heat capacities. Apparently Einstein calculated the contribution of the oscillation of the atoms to the total molar energy of metal and obtained the quantum equation above in place of the classical one? I'm so nervous for this course now :\
  5. Sep 18, 2013 #4
    I am assuming that for high T you can manipulate [itex] e^{\frac{h \nu}{k T}}[/itex]. Try this.
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?
Draft saved Draft deleted

Similar Discussions: Quantum Um vs Classical Um
  1. UM Motion (Replies: 15)