I What Are the Implications of Choosing Different Paths in Entropy Calculations?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the implications of choosing different paths in entropy calculations, particularly in relation to Clausius' theorem. It highlights the confusion arising from selecting a closed cycle, such as R-P, which leads to contradictions in entropy inequalities. The key point is that irreversible processes cannot be treated the same as reversible ones, as spontaneous changes in one direction do not guarantee reversibility in the opposite direction. The conversation emphasizes the need for clarity on the restrictions when applying closed cycles in entropy calculations. Understanding these principles is crucial for accurately interpreting statistical physics concepts.
Haorong Wu
Messages
417
Reaction score
90
TL;DR Summary
Are there any restrictions of choosing circles in Clausius theorem?
Hi, I am currently reading Introduction to statistical physics by Huang. In the section of entropy, it reads

Let ##P## be an arbitrary path from ##A## to ##B##, reversible or not. Let ##R## be a reversible path with the same endpoints. Then the combined process ##P-R## is a closed cycle, and therefore by Clausius' theorem ##\int_{P-R} dQ/T \leq 0##, or
##\int_{P} \frac {dQ} {T} \leq \int_{R} \frac {dQ} {T}##.
Since the right side is the definition of the entropy difference between the final state ##B## and the initial state ##A##, we have ##S \left ( B \right ) - S \left ( A \right ) \geq \int_{A}^{B} \frac {dQ} {T}## where the equality holds if the process is reversible.

But what if I choose ##R-P## as a closed cycle? Then in a similar process, I should have ##\int_{R} \frac {dQ} {T} \leq \int_{P} \frac {dQ} {T}## and ##S \left ( B \right ) - S \left ( A \right ) \leq \int_{A}^{B} \frac {dQ} {T}##, which are contradicted to the equations above. I am not sure what goes wrong. Maybe there are some restrictions when I choose a closed cycle, but I did not find any relevant context in the book.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
In your setting you should have
\int_R \frac{dQ}{T} \leq -\int_{-P}\frac{dQ}{T} where
-\int_{-P} \frac{dQ}{T} \neq \int_{P}\frac{dQ}{T}
because P is not a reversible process.
 
anuttarasammyak said:
In your setting you should have
\int_R \frac{dQ}{T} \leq -\int_{-P}\frac{dQ}{T} where
-\int_{-P} \frac{dQ}{T} \neq \int_{P}\frac{dQ}{T}
because P is not a reversible process.

Thanks, anuttarasammyak. I understand it now.
 
Haorong Wu said:
Summary:: Are there any restrictions of choosing circles in Clausius theorem?

Hi, I am currently reading Introduction to statistical physics by Huang. In the section of entropy, it reads
But what if I choose ##R-P## as a closed cycle? Then in a similar process, I should have ##\int_{R} \frac {dQ} {T} \leq \int_{P} \frac {dQ} {T}## and ##S \left ( B \right ) - S \left ( A \right ) \leq \int_{A}^{B} \frac {dQ} {T}##, which are contradicted to the equations above. I am not sure what goes wrong. Maybe there are some restrictions when I choose a closed cycle, but I did not find any relevant context in the book.
For the irreversible paths, P can't be made the same for any opposite path and for the forward path. If it happens spontaneously for the forward path, it will not be spontaneous for the reverse path, and you can't even force it to follow the exact reverse path.
 
Chestermiller said:
For the irreversible paths, P can't be made the same for any opposite path and for the forward path. If it happens spontaneously for the forward path, it will not be spontaneous for the reverse path, and you can't even force it to follow the exact reverse path.

Thanks, Chestermiller. I just start learning statistical physics, and thanks for pointing this important point for me.
 
Thread 'Question about pressure of a liquid'
I am looking at pressure in liquids and I am testing my idea. The vertical tube is 100m, the contraption is filled with water. The vertical tube is very thin(maybe 1mm^2 cross section). The area of the base is ~100m^2. Will he top half be launched in the air if suddenly it cracked?- assuming its light enough. I want to test my idea that if I had a thin long ruber tube that I lifted up, then the pressure at "red lines" will be high and that the $force = pressure * area$ would be massive...
I feel it should be solvable we just need to find a perfect pattern, and there will be a general pattern since the forces acting are based on a single function, so..... you can't actually say it is unsolvable right? Cause imaging 3 bodies actually existed somwhere in this universe then nature isn't gonna wait till we predict it! And yea I have checked in many places that tiny changes cause large changes so it becomes chaos........ but still I just can't accept that it is impossible to solve...
Back
Top