Stability, Helmholtz free energy mathematical relation proof

In summary, the stability of a system can be determined by examining the mathematical relationship between Helmholtz free energy and its partial derivatives. By considering the Helmholtz free energy as a function of internal energy and entropy, and using the general relation for infinitesimal processes, we can derive an expression for ##\left ( \frac{\partial P}{\partial V} \right )_T## which is crucial in proving the given identity.
  • #1
fluidistic
Gold Member
3,923
261
Stability, Helmholtz free energy mathematical relation "proof"

Homework Statement


I must show that [tex]\left ( \frac{\partial ^2 F}{\partial V ^2} \right ) _T=\frac{\frac{\partial ^2 U}{\partial S^2} \frac{\partial ^2 U}{\partial V ^2} - \left ( \frac{\partial ^2 U}{\partial S \partial V} \right ) ^2}{\frac{\partial ^2 U}{\partial S^2}}[/tex]
Where F is the Helmholtz free energy defined as ##F=U-TS##.
Hint: See that ##\left ( \frac{\partial ^2 F}{\partial V ^2} \right ) _T=-\left ( \frac{\partial P}{\partial V } \right ) _T## and consider P as a function of S and V.

Homework Equations


As you can see, it is not clear at all what variables are kept constant when he does (the book) the partial derivatives. Furthermore, I don't find any sense to considering ##-\left ( \frac{\partial P}{\partial V } \right ) _T## if P is a function of S and V rather than V and T.


The Attempt at a Solution


I can't seem to make sense of the hint given. So I started with the definition of the Helmholtz free energy and performed twice the derivative with respect to V with T fixed to reach ##\left ( \frac{\partial ^2 F}{\partial V ^2} \right ) _T=\left ( \frac{\partial ^2 U}{\partial V ^2} \right ) _T-T\left ( \frac{\partial ^2 S}{\partial V ^2} \right ) _T##.
Now ##T=\left ( \frac{\partial U}{\partial S} \right ) _V## so that ##\left ( \frac{\partial ^2 F}{\partial V ^2} \right ) _T=\left ( \frac{\partial ^2 U}{\partial V ^2} \right ) _T-\left ( \frac{\partial U}{\partial S} \right ) _V \left ( \frac{\partial ^2 S}{\partial V ^2} \right ) _T##.
Now I multiply and divide by ##\left ( \frac{\partial ^2 U}{\partial S ^2} \right ) _T## to reach [tex]\left ( \frac{\partial ^2 F}{\partial V ^2} \right ) _T=\frac{\left ( \frac{\partial ^2 U}{\partial V ^2} \right ) _T\left ( \frac{\partial ^2 U}{\partial S ^2} \right ) _T- \left ( \frac{\partial U}{\partial S} \right ) _V \left ( \frac{\partial ^2 U}{\partial V ^2} \right ) _T}{\left ( \frac{\partial ^2 U}{\partial S ^2} \right ) _T}[/tex] so I've almost the right expression but not quite. I don't know how to proceed further. Nor do I know how to use the hint given, nor do I understand it.
Any help is appreciated. Thank you!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
In arriving at your last expression, it looks like you set ##\left ( \frac{\partial ^2 S}{\partial V ^2} \right ) _T \cdot \left ( \frac{\partial ^2 U}{\partial S ^2} \right ) _T = \left ( \frac{\partial ^2 U}{\partial V ^2} \right ) _T##. But this isn't correct. Note that the dimensions of the left and right sides don't match. (The entropy dimension does not cancel out on the left).

In the original identity that you want to show, I believe that the energy U is considered a function of V and S. So, the quantities that are kept constant in the partial derivatives on the right side are either V or S rather than V or T.

The hint that is given will work. Start with dU = -PdV + TdS to find an expression for P as a partial derivative of U. Then use this to try to express ##-\left ( \frac{\partial P}{\partial V } \right ) _T## in terms of partials of U.
 
  • Like
Likes 1 person
  • #3
I see, you are right I have been sloppy with the partial differentials. I didn't know what I did was wrong, so thanks a lot.
##dU=-PdV+TdS+\mu \underbrace {dn}_{=0} \Rightarrow P = - \left ( \frac{\partial U}{\partial V} \right ) _S##.
So that ##- \left ( \frac{\partial P}{\partial V} \right ) _T = \frac{\partial }{\partial V} \left [ \left ( \frac{\partial U}{\partial V} \right ) _S \right ] _T##.
Is it okay so far? I still don't see where to use the hint but I'll think about it.
 
  • #5
I'm lost. I've tried some non sensical stuff but that lead me to nowhere. Like the Euler relation U=TS-PV, then ##P=\frac{TS-U}{V}## and if I think P as a function of S and V like the hint says, then I reach that ##\left ( \frac{\partial P}{\partial V} \right ) _T=\frac{U-ST}{V^2}##. Of course this doesn't make any sense but I've reached the point where I don't have any physical intuition but I only see a bunch of equations of several variables.
 
  • #6
fluidistic said:
... I've reached the point where I don't have any physical intuition but I only see a bunch of equations of several variables.

Welcome to thermodynamics! :wink:

You need to find an expression for ##\left( \frac{\partial P}{\partial V} \right )_T##.
We are taking P to be a function of V and S. So, for any infinitesimal process ##dP = \left ( \frac{\partial P}{\partial V} \right )_S dV + \left ( \frac{\partial P}{\partial S} \right )_V dS ##

Apply this general relation to the specific case where P, V and S change while T is held fixed. Denote the infinitesimal changes in P, V and S while T is held fixed by ##dP_T## ,##dV_T## and ##dS_T##.

So, ##dP_T = \left ( \frac{\partial P}{\partial V} \right )_S dV_T + \left ( \frac{\partial P}{\partial S} \right )_V dS_T ##

Divide through by ##dV_T## and interpret.
 
  • #7
TSny said:
Welcome to thermodynamics! :wink:

You need to find an expression for ##\left( \frac{\partial P}{\partial V} \right )_T##.
We are taking P to be a function of V and S. So, for any infinitesimal process ##dP = \left ( \frac{\partial P}{\partial V} \right )_S dV + \left ( \frac{\partial P}{\partial S} \right )_V dS ##

Apply this general relation to the specific case where P, V and S change while T is held fixed. Denote the infinitesimal changes in P, V and S while T is held fixed by ##dP_T## ,##dV_T## and ##dS_T##.

So, ##dP_T = \left ( \frac{\partial P}{\partial V} \right )_S dV_T + \left ( \frac{\partial P}{\partial S} \right )_V dS_T ##

Divide through by ##dV_T## and interpret.
I see. I reach a "famous" formula for partial derivatives that I demonstrated a few months ago. Namely that ##\left ( \frac{\partial x}{\partial y} \right ) _z=\left ( \frac{\partial x}{\partial y} \right ) _w+\left ( \frac{\partial x}{\partial w} \right ) _y\left ( \frac{\partial w}{\partial y} \right ) _z##. So here I reach ##\left ( \frac{\partial P}{\partial V} \right ) _T=\left ( \frac{\partial P}{\partial V} \right ) _S+\left ( \frac{\partial P}{\partial S} \right ) _V\left ( \frac{\partial S}{\partial V} \right ) _T##. I didn't know it would haunt me up to here...
I don't really know what to interpret here. I've rewritten ##\left( \frac{\partial P}{\partial V} \right )_T## into a more complicated form. I know that minus ##\left( \frac{\partial P}{\partial V} \right )_T## must equal ##\frac{\left ( \frac{\partial ^2 U}{\partial V ^2} \right ) _T\left ( \frac{\partial ^2 U}{\partial S ^2} \right ) _T- \left ( \frac{\partial U}{\partial S} \right ) _V \left ( \frac{\partial ^2 U}{\partial V ^2} \right ) _T}{\left ( \frac{\partial ^2 U}{\partial S ^2} \right ) _T}##. I guess I must use another relation between partial derivatives to show that equality?
 
  • #8
fluidistic said:
So here I reach ##\left ( \frac{\partial P}{\partial V} \right ) _T=\left ( \frac{\partial P}{\partial V} \right ) _S+\left ( \frac{\partial P}{\partial S} \right ) _V\left ( \frac{\partial S}{\partial V} \right ) _T##.

Good. Now you want to write the right-hand side in terms of partials of U. You found earlier that ##P = -\left( \frac{\partial U}{ \partial V} \right)_S##.

Use that in the right-hand side of your equation for ## \left( \frac{ \partial P}{ \partial V} \right)_T##.
 
  • #9
##\left( \frac{ \partial P}{ \partial V} \right)_T=-\left( \frac{ \partial ^2 U}{ \partial V^2} \right)_S- \frac{\partial }{\partial S} \left [ \left( \frac{ \partial U}{ \partial V} \right)_S \right ] _V \left( \frac{ \partial S}{ \partial V} \right)_T##. Which is equal to ##-\left( \frac{ \partial ^2 U}{ \partial V^2} \right)_S-\left( \frac{ \partial T}{ \partial V} \right)_S \left( \frac{ \partial S}{ \partial V} \right)_T##.
Here I used the cyclic relation ##\left( \frac{ \partial T}{ \partial V} \right)_S \left( \frac{ \partial V}{ \partial S} \right)_T \left( \frac{ \partial S}{ \partial T} \right)_V=-1## to get another expression for ##\left( \frac{ \partial T}{ \partial V} \right)_S## but after replacing it in the expression of ##\left( \frac{ \partial P}{ \partial V} \right)_T##, it just looks more complicated.
I'm sure I'm missing something, once again.
 
  • #10
fluidistic said:
##\left( \frac{ \partial P}{ \partial V} \right)_T=-\left( \frac{ \partial ^2 U}{ \partial V^2} \right)_S- \frac{\partial }{\partial S} \left [ \left( \frac{ \partial U}{ \partial V} \right)_S \right ] _V \left( \frac{ \partial S}{ \partial V} \right)_T##
Don't do anything to the ##\frac{\partial }{\partial S} \left [ \left( \frac{ \partial U}{ \partial V} \right)_S \right ] _V## since that is part of what you want to end up with.

Use your cyclic relation to find another expression for ##\left( \frac{ \partial S}{ \partial V} \right)_T##. Then remember that ##T = \left( \frac{ \partial U}{ \partial S} \right)_V##.
 
  • Like
Likes 1 person
  • #11
This is a straight mathematical problem in manipulating partial derivatives. Maybe this will help:
Write P = P(S,V) and T = T(S,V). Then,

[tex]dP=\left( \frac{\partial P}{\partial S}\right)_VdS+\left(\frac{\partial P}{\partial V}\right)_SdV[/tex]
[tex]dT=\left( \frac{\partial T}{\partial S}\right)_VdS+\left(\frac{\partial T}{\partial V}\right)_SdV[/tex]

From the first equation,

[tex]\left(\frac{\partial P}{\partial V}\right)_T=\left( \frac{\partial P}{\partial V}\right)_S+\left(\frac{\partial P}{\partial S}\right)_V\left(\frac{\partial S}{\partial V}\right)_T[/tex]

From the second equation, if dT = 0, then
[tex]\left(\frac{\partial S}{\partial V}\right)_T=-\frac{\left(\frac{\partial T}{\partial V}\right)_S}{\left( \frac{\partial T}{\partial S}\right)_V}[/tex]

Combining these two equations, we get:

[tex]\left(\frac{\partial P}{\partial V}\right)_T=\frac{\left( \frac{\partial P}{\partial V}\right)_S \left( \frac{\partial T}{\partial S}\right)_V-\left(\frac{\partial P}{\partial S}\right)_V\left(\frac{\partial T}{\partial V}\right)_S}{\left( \frac{\partial T}{\partial S}\right)_V}[/tex]

Now,
[tex]dU=\left( \frac{\partial U}{\partial S}\right)_VdS+\left(\frac{\partial U}{\partial V}\right)_SdV=TdS-PdV[/tex]
Therefore,
[tex]\left( \frac{\partial U}{\partial S}\right)_V=T[/tex]
[tex]\left(\frac{\partial U}{\partial V}\right)_S=-P[/tex]
Therefore,
[tex]\left( \frac{\partial ^2U}{\partial S \partial V}\right)=\left(\frac{\partial T}{\partial V}\right)_S=-\left(\frac{\partial P}{\partial S}\right)_V[/tex]
So,
[tex]\left( \frac{\partial ^2U}{\partial S \partial V}\right)^2=-\left(\frac{\partial T}{\partial V}\right)_S\left(\frac{\partial P}{\partial S}\right)_V[/tex]

The rest should be easy.
 
  • #12
Thanks guys, I had been busy and couldn't spend time on this problem but now I'm back.
TSny said:
Don't do anything to the ##\frac{\partial }{\partial S} \left [ \left( \frac{ \partial U}{ \partial V} \right)_S \right ] _V## since that is part of what you want to end up with.

Use your cyclic relation to find another expression for ##\left( \frac{ \partial S}{ \partial V} \right)_T##. Then remember that ##T = \left( \frac{ \partial U}{ \partial S} \right)_V##.

So I had ##\left( \frac{ \partial P}{ \partial V} \right)_T=-\left( \frac{ \partial ^2 U}{ \partial V^2} \right)_S- \frac{\partial }{\partial S} \left [ \left( \frac{ \partial U}{ \partial V} \right)_S \right ] _V \left( \frac{ \partial S}{ \partial V} \right)_T##. Rewritten: ##\left( \frac{ \partial P}{ \partial V} \right)_T=-\left( \frac{ \partial ^2 U}{ \partial V^2} \right )- \frac{\partial ^2 U }{\partial S \partial V} \left( \frac{ \partial S}{ \partial V} \right)_T##.
Using the cyclic relation on the last term (basically equivalent to what Chestermiller did) I get that ##\left( \frac{ \partial P}{ \partial V} \right)_T=-\left( \frac{ \partial ^2 U}{ \partial V^2} \right)_S + \frac{\left ( \frac{\partial T}{\partial V} \right ) _S}{\left ( \frac{\partial T}{\partial S} \right ) _V} \frac{\partial ^2 U}{\partial V \partial S}##.
Now using your tip TSny about T, I get that ##\left ( \frac{\partial T}{\partial V} \right ) _S= \frac{\partial ^2 U}{\partial V \partial S}## and ##\left ( \frac{\partial T}{\partial S} \right ) _V= \frac{\partial ^2 U }{\partial S ^2}##.
Plugging this back into the equation, I get that [tex]\left ( \frac{\partial P}{\partial V} \right ) _T=\frac{- \left ( \frac{\partial ^2 U}{\partial V ^2} \right ) \left ( \frac{\partial ^2 U}{\partial S^2} \right ) }{\frac{\partial ^2 U}{\partial S^2}}+\frac{\left ( \frac{\partial ^2 U}{\partial S \partial V} \right ) ^2 \left ( \frac{\partial ^2 U }{\partial V \partial S} \right ) }{\left ( \frac{\partial ^2U}{\partial S ^2} \right ) }[/tex]. So it's almost what I should get, except for the second term where I have an extra multiplicative term ##\left ( \frac{\partial ^2 U}{\partial V \partial S} \right )##.
So I've rechecked all the algebra around this second term, but I didn't spot any mistake. I don't see where I went wrong! Can you spot my mistake(s)?
 
  • #13
fluidistic said:
Thanks guys, I had been busy and couldn't spend time on this problem but now I'm back.

So I had ##\left( \frac{ \partial P}{ \partial V} \right)_T=-\left( \frac{ \partial ^2 U}{ \partial V^2} \right)_S- \frac{\partial }{\partial S} \left [ \left( \frac{ \partial U}{ \partial V} \right)_S \right ] _V \left( \frac{ \partial S}{ \partial V} \right)_T##. Rewritten: ##\left( \frac{ \partial P}{ \partial V} \right)_T=-\left( \frac{ \partial ^2 U}{ \partial V^2} \right )- \frac{\partial ^2 U }{\partial S \partial V} \left( \frac{ \partial S}{ \partial V} \right)_T##.
Using the cyclic relation on the last term (basically equivalent to what Chestermiller did) I get that ##\left( \frac{ \partial P}{ \partial V} \right)_T=-\left( \frac{ \partial ^2 U}{ \partial V^2} \right)_S + \frac{\left ( \frac{\partial T}{\partial V} \right ) _S}{\left ( \frac{\partial T}{\partial S} \right ) _V} \frac{\partial ^2 U}{\partial V \partial S}##.
Now using your tip TSny about T, I get that ##\left ( \frac{\partial T}{\partial V} \right ) _S= \frac{\partial ^2 U}{\partial V \partial S}## and ##\left ( \frac{\partial T}{\partial S} \right ) _V= \frac{\partial ^2 U }{\partial S ^2}##.
Plugging this back into the equation, I get that [tex]\left ( \frac{\partial P}{\partial V} \right ) _T=\frac{- \left ( \frac{\partial ^2 U}{\partial V ^2} \right ) \left ( \frac{\partial ^2 U}{\partial S^2} \right ) }{\frac{\partial ^2 U}{\partial S^2}}+\frac{\left ( \frac{\partial ^2 U}{\partial S \partial V} \right ) ^2 \left ( \frac{\partial ^2 U }{\partial V \partial S} \right ) }{\left ( \frac{\partial ^2U}{\partial S ^2} \right ) }[/tex]. So it's almost what I should get, except for the second term where I have an extra multiplicative term ##\left ( \frac{\partial ^2 U}{\partial V \partial S} \right )##.
So I've rechecked all the algebra around this second term, but I didn't spot any mistake. I don't see where I went wrong! Can you spot my mistake(s)?

Yes. Your mistake is easy to spot.
The equation
##\left( \frac{ \partial P}{ \partial V} \right)_T=-\left( \frac{ \partial ^2 U}{ \partial V^2} \right)_S + \frac{\left ( \frac{\partial T}{\partial V} \right ) _S}{\left ( \frac{\partial T}{\partial S} \right ) _V} \frac{\partial ^2 U}{\partial V \partial S}##
is correct. But then when you substituted ##\left ( \frac{\partial T}{\partial V} \right ) _S= \frac{\partial ^2 U}{\partial V \partial S}=\frac{\partial ^2 U}{\partial S \partial V}## into the equation, you got an extra factor of ##\frac{\partial ^2 U}{\partial S \partial V}##.
 
  • Like
Likes 1 person
  • #14
You have ##\left( \frac{ \partial P}{ \partial V} \right)_T=-\left( \frac{ \partial ^2 U}{ \partial V^2} \right)_S + \frac{\left ( \frac{\partial T}{\partial V} \right ) _S}{\left ( \frac{\partial T}{\partial S} \right ) _V} \frac{\partial ^2 U}{\partial V \partial S}## which looks correct.

The relation ##\left ( \frac{\partial T}{\partial V} \right ) _S= \frac{\partial ^2 U}{\partial V \partial S}## gives you one more factor of ## \frac{\partial ^2 U}{\partial V \partial S}##.

So, overall, you should end up with only two factors of ##\frac{\partial ^2 U}{\partial V \partial S}## rather than three factors.

[EDIT: I see Chestermiller already caught the mistake.]
 
  • Like
Likes 1 person
  • #15
Thank you guys! Problem solved then.
 

1. What is stability and why is it important in science?

Stability refers to the tendency of a system to resist change and return to its original state after being disturbed. It is important in science because it allows us to predict and understand the behavior of systems, such as chemical reactions, physical processes, and biological systems.

2. What is the Helmholtz free energy and how is it related to stability?

The Helmholtz free energy is a thermodynamic potential that represents the maximum amount of work that can be extracted from a system at constant temperature and volume. It is related to stability through the equation dF = -SdT - PdV, which describes the change in Helmholtz free energy as a function of temperature and volume. A system is stable when its Helmholtz free energy is at a minimum.

3. What is the mathematical relation between stability and Helmholtz free energy?

The mathematical relation between stability and Helmholtz free energy is given by the equation dF = -SdT - PdV. This equation shows that a decrease in Helmholtz free energy (dF < 0) leads to an increase in stability, as the system is able to resist changes in temperature and volume.

4. How is the concept of stability and Helmholtz free energy used in practical applications?

The concept of stability and Helmholtz free energy is used in a variety of practical applications, such as in chemical reactions, materials science, and thermodynamics. It allows scientists to predict and control the behavior of systems, and is also used in the development of new materials and processes.

5. Can the stability of a system be determined solely by its Helmholtz free energy?

No, the stability of a system cannot be determined solely by its Helmholtz free energy. Other factors, such as the entropy and enthalpy of the system, must also be considered. Additionally, the context and conditions of the system must be taken into account when assessing stability.

Similar threads

  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
966
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
10
Views
573
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
664
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
4
Views
927
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
29
Views
133
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
984
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
913
Back
Top