Relationship Between V and T in Adiabatic Expansion

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The relationship between temperature (T) and volume (V) during adiabatic expansion of black body radiation is defined by the equations E = σVT^4 and p = 1/3σT^4. The discussion reveals that the correct derivation shows T ∝ V^-1/3, achieved through the application of differential equations and the appropriate use of both equations. Initial attempts to derive this relationship were deemed overly simplistic and incorrect, emphasizing the necessity of incorporating all relevant equations in the analysis.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of black body radiation principles
  • Familiarity with thermodynamic equations, specifically E = σVT^4 and p = 1/3σT^4
  • Knowledge of differential equations
  • Basic concepts of adiabatic processes in thermodynamics
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation of relationships in thermodynamics involving adiabatic processes
  • Learn about the implications of black body radiation in different physical contexts
  • Explore advanced applications of differential equations in thermodynamic systems
  • Investigate the role of pressure in adiabatic processes using the equation p = 1/3σT^4
USEFUL FOR

Students and professionals in physics, particularly those focusing on thermodynamics and radiation, as well as anyone involved in advanced mathematical modeling of physical systems.

Chronum
Messages
21
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


The energy and pressure of black body radiation depend on T and V as Eq(1) & Eq(2). Suppose that the temperature and volume of a box of radiation change adiabatically. Find the relation between dE and dT in this process. Next, using Eq(1), show that T ∝V^-1/3

Homework Equations


Eq(1): E = σVT^4;
Eq(2): p = 1/3σT^4;
ΔE = Q - W;

Since Q = 0;
ΔE = -W

The Attempt at a Solution



To begin with we've (a few people working together) have tried what appears to be an overly simple method.
E = σ V T^4
dE/dT = 4 σ V T^3
dE = 4 σ V T^3 dT
V = dE/(4 σ T^3 dT)

∴ V∝T^-1/3

But this seems overly simplistic, especially since volume is changing too. Any formulae/approaches we're missing?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Do you realize that in your final answer V and T are swapped compared with what was given to be proved?
Certainly the method is not valid.
You do not seem to have used Eq 2 at all. I would think you need to use that and some relationship between V, E and p.
 
haruspex said:
Do you realize that in your final answer V and T are swapped compared with what was given to be proved?
Certainly the method is not valid.
You do not seem to have used Eq 2 at all. I would think you need to use that and some relationship between V, E and p.
That is correct. I apologize. It was a mistake of plain anticlimactic proportions.

And yes, I did end up using Eq(2), and we got the answer after some rather petty algebra and a step of differential equations. Problem solved.
 
Chronum said:
That is correct. I apologize. It was a mistake of plain anticlimactic proportions.

And yes, I did end up using Eq(2), and we got the answer after some rather petty algebra and a step of differential equations. Problem solved.
Was that petty or pretty?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
49
Views
3K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
5K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
1K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
6K