Slow variables in thermodynamics

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the relationship between macroscopic thermodynamic variables and conserved quantities like mass, momentum, and energy. A key question raised is how to prove that non-conserved quantities decay rapidly, and whether the conserved quantities identified in a microscopic Hamiltonian framework are the only relevant ones. Additionally, the possibility of deriving macroscopic properties from a microscopic description without relying on thermodynamics is explored, particularly in identifying temperature as a fundamental variable. Concerns are raised about the applicability of Hamiltonian mechanics to complex systems, such as fluids with shock waves, which may not fit the conservative system model. The emergence of macroscopic properties from microscopic descriptions remains a significant and unresolved issue in material science.
tun
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
After a while reading physicsforums.com from the shadows, I have decided to emerge and ask a question or two.

I was reading a review article on extended irreversible thermodynamics recently, but the EIT isn't relevant - it was something in the intro that caught my eye.

"The variables used in the macroscopic description [thermodynamics] are not arbitrary: they
are directly related to conserved quantities, namely, mass, momentum and energy. All
the other variables - diverse combinations of the positions and momenta of particles - are
not conserved and they decay very rapidly, in such a way that in a very short time
one is left with only the slow conserved variables."

How would one go about proving the statement about the decay of other quantities? Obviously, in the usual microscopic Hamiltonian description of the system we can identify conserved quantities, but does that imply that these are the only conserved quantities of the system (or the only ones that aren't combinations of the basic ones, energy etc)?

A related question which might not make sense: given the microscopic description of the system, is it possible to obtain the relevant macroscopic properties without referring to thermodynamics? e.g. not just calculate the temperature from microscopic properties, but identify it as a variable that characterises the macroscopic system in the first place, to the exclusion of those other "diverse combinations" of variables.

Any thoughts are welcome!
 
Science news on Phys.org
The emergence of macroscopic properties from a microscopic system description has not been demonstrated in any generality, AFAIK. It's a very important problem, especially in material science.

I'm not sure I totally agree with the quoted sentence- mixtures of materials are usually handled by allowing mass (of the constituents) to change, and are not conserved (by adding a chemical potential). I suspect the authors are starting with a Hamiltonian for the system, where H is written in terms of canonical pairs (positions and momenta)-but Hamiltonians can only be written for restricted classes of systems- conservative systems. I don't think it's possible to write a Hamiltonian for a fluid containing a shock wave or singular surface, for example.
 
I was watching a Khan Academy video on entropy called: Reconciling thermodynamic and state definitions of entropy. So in the video it says: Let's say I have a container. And in that container, I have gas particles and they're bouncing around like gas particles tend to do, creating some pressure on the container of a certain volume. And let's say I have n particles. Now, each of these particles could be in x different states. Now, if each of them can be in x different states, how many total...
Thread 'Why work is PdV and not (P+dP)dV in an isothermal process?'
Let's say we have a cylinder of volume V1 with a frictionless movable piston and some gas trapped inside with pressure P1 and temperature T1. On top of the piston lay some small pebbles that add weight and essentially create the pressure P1. Also the system is inside a reservoir of water that keeps its temperature constant at T1. The system is in equilibrium at V1, P1, T1. Now let's say i put another very small pebble on top of the piston (0,00001kg) and after some seconds the system...
Back
Top