Understanding Entropy Changes in Different Chemical Reactions

  • Thread starter Thread starter bjoyful
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
Entropy changes in chemical reactions can indicate whether a system's disorder is increasing or decreasing. The conversion of liquid water to ice represents a decrease in entropy due to fewer available states. In contrast, dissolving solid sodium in water and cracking hydrocarbons into smaller molecules both result in an increase in entropy, as these processes create more particles and thus more possible states for the system. Understanding entropy as a measure of the number of states a system can occupy clarifies these reactions. Overall, both the dissolution of sodium and the cracking of hydrocarbons illustrate an increase in entropy.
bjoyful
Messages
61
Reaction score
0
I am studying about entropy increasing and decreasing. I *think* I understand the example when liquid water is converted to ice, and that it demonstrates a decrease in entropy. However, I don’t get the other two – when solid sodium is dissolved in water and when hydrocarbons with 16 carbons are cracked into smaller hydrocarbons. Are they demonstrating an entropy increase or decrease? Why?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Basically entropy signifies the number of states a system can be in. This means that when there are more particles in a system that the system can attain more states. So when solid sodium reacts with water to form sodium ions, hydrogen and hydroxide ions the system gains entropy because there will be more states for it to be in. When the hydrocarbon is cracked entropy also increases because there will be more particles in the system that can all be somewhere at some velocity which implies more states are available.
 
Thanks for that wonderful explanation! So they both demonstrate entropy increasing...I thought that is what it was, but now I have a better grasp on it - thanks to you:)
 
I don't get how to argue it. i can prove: evolution is the ability to adapt, whether it's progression or regression from some point of view, so if evolution is not constant then animal generations couldn`t stay alive for a big amount of time because when climate is changing this generations die. but they dont. so evolution is constant. but its not an argument, right? how to fing arguments when i only prove it.. analytically, i guess it called that (this is indirectly related to biology, im...
Back
Top