What Happens to Volume Change Ratio in Caesium When Pressure Exceeds 1.6 GPa?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the behavior of caesium under high pressure, specifically examining the volume change ratio in relation to its bulk modulus of 1.6 GPa. Participants explore theoretical implications of applying pressures greater than this value and clarify concepts related to bulk modulus and volume change.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the implications of applying pressure greater than 1.6 GPa, suggesting that a volume change ratio greater than 1 is not physically plausible.
  • Another participant clarifies that bulk modulus is defined in terms of the rate of fractional change in volume with pressure, not as a direct volume change, which may address some confusion.
  • Concerns are raised about a formula presented for bulk modulus, with participants noting that it implies the possibility of compressing a sample to zero volume, which is not consistent with physical experience.
  • A mathematical expression is introduced, suggesting that under certain assumptions, the volume does not approach zero even as pressure increases indefinitely.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the interpretation of bulk modulus and its implications for volume change under high pressure. There is no consensus on the correctness of the formulas discussed, and the implications of applying high pressure remain contested.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the assumption of constant bulk compressibility and the potential misunderstanding of the definitions and implications of bulk modulus. The discussion also highlights the need for clarity on the mathematical expressions related to volume change.

Fitz Watson
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
Today, while studying about bulk Modulus, I encountered a doubt. Please consider this thought experiment.

I'm considering Caesium as an example as it seems to have a quite low Bulk Modulus (comparatively) of 1.6 GPa.
Let's say I apply a pressure of X GPa.
Volume change ratio can be given by X/1.6

What happens if I increase X to more than 1.6 GPa? Practically speaking, its impossible to have Volume change ratio of > 1. So, where am I going wrong?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Fitz Watson said:
What happens if I increase X to more than 1.6 GPa?
Of course you can't expect to squeeze the sample down to nothing. :wink:
The expression for Bulk Modulus K is not what you are implying though. Bulk modulus is useful for describing the behaviour of solids and liquids.
e782c2d3008ff51d03795ad928b9c6b1b1f99515

Is the way it's defined - in terms of the rate of fractional change in volume with pressure and not the change of volume with pressure. Does that help with your confusion?
Gases follow the 'Gas Laws' because there is a lot of space between the molecules so Boyle's Law PV=Constant can be used over a huge range of pressures and volumes.
 
sophiecentaur said:
Of course you can't expect to squeeze the sample down to nothing. :wink:
The expression for Bulk Modulus K is not what you are implying though. Bulk modulus is useful for describing the behaviour of solids and liquids.
e782c2d3008ff51d03795ad928b9c6b1b1f99515

Is the way it's defined - in terms of the rate of fractional change in volume with pressure and not the change of volume with pressure. Does that help with your confusion?
Gases follow the 'Gas Laws' because there is a lot of space between the molecules so Boyle's Law PV=Constant can be used over a huge range of pressures and volumes.

Is this formula wrong?
Bulk Modulus = Pressure/Volume Strain?
I haven't gone into the differential form of it yet, so that's why I'm using this one
 
If you apply the nominal 1.6 GPa pressure, you'll compress the substance by a factor of e. To make a long story short, that's because ##\lim_{n \to \infty}(1-\frac{1}{n})^n## = 1/e.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: sophiecentaur
Fitz Watson said:
Is this formula wrong?
I don't recognise it. You yourself have pointed out a problem with it as it suggests that you could crush a sample out of existence. As @jbriggs444 points out, the proper formula is consistent with experience - always a good thing. :wink:
 
If one assumes that the bulk compressibility is approximately constant, then the solution to the (correct) differential equation posted by @sophiecentaur in post #4 is not $$V=V_0\left[1-\frac{P}{K}\right]$$The correct solution to this equation is $$V=V_0\exp{\left(-\frac{P}{K}\right)}$$So, no matter how high P gets, V never goes to zero.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: sophiecentaur and jbriggs444

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
14
Views
4K
Replies
2
Views
30K
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
11K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
5K
Replies
6
Views
5K