How do I deduce some basic thermodynamic identities using multivariate calculus?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

This discussion focuses on deducing basic thermodynamic identities using multivariate calculus, specifically under the constraints of the state function f(x, y, z) = 0 and a function w dependent on two of these variables. Key identities derived include the relationships between partial derivatives, such as (∂x/∂y)_w (∂y/∂z)_w = (∂x/∂z)_w and (∂x/∂y)_z (∂y/∂z)_y (∂z/∂x)_x = -1. The discussion emphasizes the use of the chain rule and exact differentials without resorting to complex analysis or topology, making it accessible for those familiar with basic calculus principles.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of multivariate calculus, specifically the chain rule and exact differentials.
  • Familiarity with thermodynamic concepts and state functions.
  • Knowledge of partial derivatives and their applications in physics.
  • Basic understanding of statistical physics principles.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the application of the chain rule in multivariable functions.
  • Explore the inverse function theorem in the context of thermodynamics.
  • Review the textbook "Thermodynamics and Introduction to Thermostatics" by Callen for detailed proofs of thermodynamic identities.
  • Investigate the role of exact differentials in deriving thermodynamic relationships.
USEFUL FOR

This discussion is beneficial for students and professionals in physics, particularly those studying thermodynamics, as well as mathematicians interested in the application of multivariate calculus in physical contexts.

CharlieCW
Messages
53
Reaction score
5

Homework Statement


Let x, y and z satisfy the state function ##f(x, y, z) = 0## and let ##w## be a function of only two of these variables. Show the following identities:

$$\left(\frac{\partial x}{\partial y}\right )_w \left(\frac{\partial y}{\partial z}\right )_w =\left(\frac{\partial x}{\partial z}\right )_w$$

$$\left(\frac{\partial x}{\partial y}\right )_w=\frac{1}{\left(\frac{\partial x}{\partial y}\right )_w}$$

$$\left(\frac{\partial x}{\partial y}\right )_z \left(\frac{\partial y}{\partial z}\right )_y \left(\frac{\partial z}{\partial x}\right )_x =-1$$

$$\left(\frac{\partial x}{\partial y}\right )_z=\left(\frac{\partial x}{\partial y}\right )_w + \left(\frac{\partial x}{\partial w}\right )_y \left(\frac{\partial w}{\partial}\right )_z$$

Homework Equations



All relationships must be deduced only by assuming ##f(x,y,z)=0## and ##w## function only of two of these variables. Cannot introduce topology or complex analysis theorems (multivariate calculus basics (i.e. chain rule, exact differentials) are allowed).

The Attempt at a Solution



These are some thermodynamic identities that I've been using for a while, and while I have seen the proofs of some of this in GR and QFT (for example, the inverse function theorem), I'm struggling a bit on how deduce them from more basic calculus theorems used in statistical physics.

To begin with, I noted that since I have ##f(x,y,z)=0## then I can write, for example, ##x=x(y,z)##. Moreover, assuming ##w=w(x,y)##, I can also write ##w=w(x(y,z),z)=w=(y,z)##, and so on.

For part (a), I used the chain rule to show straightforward that:

$$\left(\frac{\partial x}{\partial z}\right )_w=\left(\frac{\partial x}{\partial y}\right )_w \left(\frac{\partial y}{\partial z}\right )_w$$

However, I'm not entirely sure if this is an acceptable proof or if there's a way to develop it a bit more.

For part (b), I tried, for example:

$$\left ( \frac{\partial x}{\partial y} \right )_w=\left ( \frac{\partial x}{\partial z} \right )_w \left ( \frac{\partial z}{\partial y} \right )_w=\left ( \frac{\partial x}{\partial y} \right )_w \left ( \frac{\partial y}{\partial z} \right )_w \left ( \frac{\partial z}{\partial y} \right )_w$$

Were I applied the chain rule again to the left term. The above expression reduces to:

$$1=\left ( \frac{\partial y}{\partial z} \right )_w \left ( \frac{\partial z}{\partial y} \right )_w \ \ \ \longrightarrow \ \ \ \left ( \frac{\partial y}{\partial z} \right )_w=\frac{1}{\left ( \frac{\partial z}{\partial y} \right )_w}$$

I have seen several proofs online using complex analysis or topology, so I'm not sure if this derivation is also valid or I just forced it.

For part (c), the proof is pretty straightforward using differentials and the inverse function theorem, so I'll skip it (a simple proof can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_product_rule)

For part (d), I'm having the most trouble. I tried using differentials and the chain rule:

$$\left ( \frac{\partial x}{\partial y} \right )_z=\left ( \frac{\partial x}{\partial w} \right )_z \left ( \frac{\partial w}{\partial y} \right )_z$$

$$dy=\left ( \frac{\partial y}{\partial x} \right )_z dx + \left ( \frac{\partial y}{\partial z} \right )_x dz$$

$$dx=\left ( \frac{\partial x}{\partial y} \right )_z dy + \left ( \frac{\partial x}{\partial z} \right )_y dz$$

Substituting the first and second expressions into the third one:

$$dx=\left ( \frac{\partial x}{\partial w} \right )_z \left ( \frac{\partial w}{\partial y} \right )_z \left ( \left ( \frac{\partial y}{\partial x} \right )_z dx + \left ( \frac{\partial y}{\partial z} \right )_x dz \right ) + \left ( \frac{\partial x}{\partial z} \right )_y dz$$

The coefficient for ##dx## should be equal to ##1##, while the coefficient for ##dz## should be zero. Therefore, we get the following equalities:

$$\left ( \frac{\partial x}{\partial w} \right )_z \left ( \frac{\partial w}{\partial y} \right )_z \left ( \frac{\partial y}{\partial x} \right )_z=1$$

$$\left ( \frac{\partial x}{\partial z} \right )_y=-\left ( \frac{\partial x}{\partial w} \right )_z \left ( \frac{\partial w}{\partial y} \right )_z \left ( \frac{\partial y}{\partial z} \right )_x$$

However, this doesn't seem to lead anywhere, so this is probably the one I have the least idea how to proceed.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
I think I've seen these in Callen's "Thermodynamics and Introduction to Thermostatics" in the appendix. Although, I'm not sure if (d) can be found there.
 
  • Like
Likes DrClaude
CptXray said:
I think I've seen these in Callen's "Thermodynamics and Introduction to Thermostatics" in the appendix. Although, I'm not sure if (d) can be found there.

Thanks, I'll check if we got it in the library after the morning lectures and I'll update you if I find the solution.

Edit: I checked the book, they have the proofs I needed. As for the last one, I found it here in page 4: http://mutuslab.cs.uwindsor.ca/schurko/introphyschem/handouts/mathsht.pdf
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes DrClaude
Question: A clock's minute hand has length 4 and its hour hand has length 3. What is the distance between the tips at the moment when it is increasing most rapidly?(Putnam Exam Question) Answer: Making assumption that both the hands moves at constant angular velocities, the answer is ## \sqrt{7} .## But don't you think this assumption is somewhat doubtful and wrong?

Similar threads

Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K