Strange derivation: Statistical thermodynamics

ApeXaviour
Messages
34
Reaction score
0
This isn't a homework question. I'm studying this from a book (Thermal Physics by Kittel & Kroemer) currently. Up til now I've had no problem following it. There's one derivation that's got me a little stumped however. I had thought my calculus was proficient enough, but I'm just not seeing something here and it's very frustrating. Y'know how it is when you just can't let yourself continue until you get past this tiny hurdle

Anyway here it is scanned from the book:
http://www.maths.tcd.ie/~cockburd/thermo.gif

The equation circled is the bit I'm having trouble with, I see where he's going with putting it in that form but I can't see how he got that equation from the one immedietly prior..

by the way:
F is helmholtz free energy,
Z is the partition function,
U is the average energy of the ensemble,
tau is the fundamental temperature and
sigma is the entropy

Thanks
Declan
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Quick reply
Take this expression
<br /> U=-\tau^2 \frac{\partial(F/ \tau)}{\partial \tau}<br />
use the product rule for derivatives. And you'll get back to the prior equation
 
You could use Greiner's text on Thermodynamics & Statistical Physics. It's much more clear and the calculations are detailed.

Daniel.
 
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