Thermodynamics - does homogeneity follow from additivity?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

Herbert Callen's 'Thermodynamics and an Introduction to Thermostatistics' (2nd edition) presents four postulates of thermodynamics, with the third postulate asserting that the entropy of a composite system is additive over its constituent subsystems. Callen claims that the entropy of a simple system is a homogeneous first-order function of extensive parameters, yet he does not provide sufficient justification for this assertion based on the existing postulates. The discussion suggests that an additional postulate may be necessary to support Callen's claim regarding homogeneity, raising questions about its validity in real thermodynamics.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of thermodynamic postulates and principles
  • Familiarity with entropy and extensive parameters
  • Knowledge of composite systems in thermodynamics
  • Basic grasp of mathematical functions and their properties
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the implications of entropy in composite systems
  • Examine the role of homogeneity in thermodynamic equations
  • Study additional postulates that may support Callen's claims
  • Explore contemporary texts on thermodynamics for updated theories
USEFUL FOR

Students of thermodynamics, researchers in physical sciences, and educators seeking a deeper understanding of entropy and its implications in composite systems.

andrewkirk
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Insights Author
Gold Member
Messages
4,140
Reaction score
1,741
In Herbert Callen's text 'Thermodynamics and an introduction to thermostatistics' 2nd edition, he introduces four postulates of thermodynamics in the first chapter. The third postulate incorporates an 'additivity property' which is stated as 'The entropy of a composite system is additive over the constituent subsystems'. He makes clear in the immediately following paragraph that by this he simply means that the entropy of any composite system is equal to the sum of the entropies of its constituent subsystems.

A few paragraphs later on he claims 'The additive property applied to spatially separate subsystems requires the following property: The entropy of a simple system is a homogeneous first order function of the extensive parameters.' He provides no argument to support this claim and I can see no way that it could be derived without assuming additional postulates.

We do have the following postulates that he has made, but they do not seem sufficient to prove Callen's claim:

Postulate 1. There exist equilibrium states that are characterised completely by U, V and ##N_k## for all particle types ##k##..

Postulate 2. There exists a function S, called entropy, of the extensive parameters of a composite system, defined for all possible equilibrium states of the system, with the property that adding a constraint cannot increase the entropy.

Postulate 3.
3.a Entropy of a composite system is additive over constituent sub-systems.
3.b Entropy is a differentiable function of the extensive parameters.
3.c Entropy is a monotone increasing function of energy.

Postulate 4.
4. [itex]\frac{\partial U}{\partial S}=0\Rightarrow S=0[/itex]

It seems to me that, to justify his claim, Callen would need an additional postulate like

Postulate 5: The fundamental equation of a composite system made up of a number of spatially separated identical systems has the same functional form as the (identical) fundamental equations of the constituent subsystems.

Am I missing something obvious here? Can the claim be proven without any additional postulates? If so how?
 
Science news on Phys.org
Surely there's somebody on PF that can answer this, isn't there?

Callen seemed to think the homogeneity was an important point. Is that not the case in real thermodynamics? Am I wasting time on something unimportant?

I also got the impression that Callen was a much-used text. I did the usual web-searching to decide what book to buy before I bought it and I think I saw quite a few recommendations. I bought it a couple of years ago and I can't remember what recommendations I saw. Maybe it's out of date now. It was last revised in 1985 so maybe it has fallen into disuse.
 

Similar threads

Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K