Relationship Between V and T in Adiabatic Expansion

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the relationship between temperature (T) and volume (V) during the adiabatic expansion of black body radiation, specifically exploring how changes in these variables relate to changes in energy (E) as described by given equations.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants initially attempt to derive a relationship between dE and dT using the equation for energy and its differential form, questioning whether their approach is too simplistic given the changing volume.

Discussion Status

Some participants have pointed out potential errors in the initial attempts, noting that the final relationship derived appears to contradict the problem's requirements. There is a suggestion to incorporate additional equations and relationships to clarify the derivation.

Contextual Notes

Participants are grappling with the implications of using the equations provided, particularly the need to consider both energy and pressure in their analysis. There is an acknowledgment of a mistake in the initial reasoning, leading to further exploration of the relevant equations.

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