Statistical Physics Problem 1a - MIT OCW

  • Thread starter Thread starter ehrenfest
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Statistical
ehrenfest
Messages
2,001
Reaction score
1
[SOLVED] statistical physisc

Homework Statement


http://ocw.mit.edu/NR/rdonlyres/Physics/8-044Spring-2004/AC9B128C-9358-4177-BFE6-A142E0FD897B/0/ps4.pdf
I am working on Problem 1a. I am really confused about this question. Do I set the two equations equal to each other and solve for something? Do I just randomly write down 3 equations for t in terms of the respective variables of the 3 systems and then plug the given equations into to them to see if they are equal?

Homework Equations


The Attempt at a Solution

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Try assuming the gases are ideal and use the correct equation of state. Did you read the lecture notes?
 
Yes, I read the lecture notes. Speaking of that, go here http://ocw.mit.edu/NR/rdonlyres/Physics/8-044Spring-2004/D4B27A47-C2E6-4D06-B646-177DC744CC2A/0/lec10.pdf
In the third slide, why is the predictor t = c_g PV/N and not t = c_g PV/NT ? It seems like they want the same constant whenever the system is in equilibrium, so doesn't that mean they want the same constant regardless of what T is at equilibrium.
In the current problem, they say the coordinates of the system are P and V, so I assume that means N is constant. So, can I define t = PV-nbP, t'' = P''V'' and then the first equation makes t = t'' at equilibrium, but I have no idea what to do about the second equation? Should I just guess and check or is there a systematic way to do this? Is there only one answer?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If temperature is the predictor of thermal equilibrium, then is it better to define the predictor to be t = c_g PV/N or t = c_g PV/NT for an ideal gas? It seems to me that the first one is a better match for the ideal gas law PV = nRT. The other way doesn't make much sense from a dimensional point of view.

But I see now that you don't need to assume ideal gases in problem 1a. Use the zeroth law: if A and C are at equilibrium and B and C are at equilibium, then A and B are at equilibium. Try calculating P'' from the first equation and from the second equation and setting the values equal to each other. Use your definitions t = PV-nbP and t'' = P''V'', and t' should emerge.
 
Thread 'Need help understanding this figure on energy levels'
This figure is from "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" by Griffiths (3rd edition). It is available to download. It is from page 142. I am hoping the usual people on this site will give me a hand understanding what is going on in the figure. After the equation (4.50) it says "It is customary to introduce the principal quantum number, ##n##, which simply orders the allowed energies, starting with 1 for the ground state. (see the figure)" I still don't understand the figure :( Here is...
Thread 'Understanding how to "tack on" the time wiggle factor'
The last problem I posted on QM made it into advanced homework help, that is why I am putting it here. I am sorry for any hassle imposed on the moderators by myself. Part (a) is quite easy. We get $$\sigma_1 = 2\lambda, \mathbf{v}_1 = \begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ 0 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_2 = \lambda, \mathbf{v}_2 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_3 = -\lambda, \mathbf{v}_3 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ -1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} $$ There are two ways...
Back
Top