What is the connection between enthalpy, mass energy, and internal energy?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter vjanandr
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Energy Mass
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the relationship between enthalpy, mass energy, and internal energy, exploring the definitions and implications of these concepts in thermodynamics. Participants examine the role of enthalpy in experimental contexts and its connection to internal energy, particularly in relation to mass-energy equivalence.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants describe enthalpy (H = U + PV) as the energy content of a system, emphasizing its dependence on temperature, pressure, and volume.
  • Others argue that enthalpy is designed for better experimental handling, particularly under isobaric conditions, allowing for easier measurement of heat exchange.
  • A participant questions why mass energy (E = mc²) is not included in the enthalpy equation, suggesting it should be H = U + PV + mc².
  • Some responses indicate that rest energy is typically included in internal energy and that they can be assumed to be identical.
  • One participant asserts that internal energy is primarily attributed to the kinetic energy of atoms, raising the question of whether internal energy should contain rest energy, especially at absolute zero.
  • Another participant mentions that internal energy encompasses various forms of energy within the system, including rest energies and potential energy, not just thermal energy.
  • There is a suggestion that mass-energy conversion is not relevant in equilibrium settings for simple gases, and a more complex treatment may be necessary for relativistic considerations.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the inclusion of mass energy in enthalpy and the interpretation of internal energy. There is no consensus on whether internal energy should account for rest energy or how these concepts interrelate in thermodynamic contexts.

Contextual Notes

Some limitations in the discussion include the dependence on specific definitions of energy forms, the complexity of measuring energy changes in different states, and the unresolved nature of how mass-energy equivalence fits into traditional thermodynamic frameworks.

vjanandr
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
Hi,

I have been trying to understand what is enthalpy (H = U + PV). What has been my current understanding is it is the energy content in a system. And this nicely brings together the energy contents in terms of the 3 state variables, Temperature, Pressure and Volume.

If enthalpy is the energy content of the system. ie, the energy required to create the system given its Temperature, Volume and Pressure. Why is energy contained in the mass of the system (E= mc^2) not considered here ? Shouldn't it be H = U + PV + mc^2 ?
 
Science news on Phys.org
vjanandr said:
I have been trying to understand what is enthalpy (H = U + PV). What has been my current understanding is it is the energy content in a system.

The energy content of the system is the internal energy U. The enthalpy has been designed for better experimental handling. According to the first law of thermodynamics the change of internal energy of a closed system is the sum of work and heat exchanged with the environment. With limitation to volumetric work this means

dU = dq + dw = dq - p·dV

As it is very hard to keep the volume constant for solid or liquid systems this is a problem for calorimetric measurement because heat and volumetric work always need to be considered or measured simultaneously. That's were the enthalpy comes into play. The change of enthalpy is

dH = dU + p·dV + V·dp = dq + V·dp

Under isobaric conditions, which can easily be established (e.g. by open the system to atmospheric pressure), this is equal to the exchanged heat. That means the change of enthalpy can directly be determined with calorimetric measurements and the heat exchange can be calculated from a known enthalpy difference before and after the process.

vjanandr said:
If enthalpy is the energy content of the system. ie, the energy required to create the system given its Temperature, Volume and Pressure. Why is energy contained in the mass of the system (E= mc^2) not considered here ? Shouldn't it be H = U + PV + mc^2 ?

The rest energy mc² is included into the internal energy and they can usually be assumed to be identical.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Ravi Singh choudhary, vjanandr and Chestermiller
Enthalpy is the energy of a system within a constant pressure environment. It adds to the internal energy U the energy required to displace the environmental fluid.

Well if you want to add in the mc^2 term then go ahead, it is simply a change of zero energy in the non-relativistic setting which, being constant will have no effect on the physics. Typically mass-energy conversion won't be occurring in an equilibrium setting if the substance is a simple gas.

If you actually want to carry out a relativistic treatment of the system then "you're going to need a bigger boat".
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vjanandr
DrStupid said:
The energy content of the system is the internal energy U. The enthalpy has been designed for better experimental handling. According to the first law of thermodynamics the change of internal energy of a closed system is the sum of work and heat exchanged with the environment. With limitation to volumetric work this means

dU = dq + dw = dq - p·dV

As it is very hard to keep the volume constant for solid or liquid systems this is a problem for calorimetric measurement because heat and volumetric work always need to be considered or measured simultaneously. That's were the enthalpy comes into play. The change of enthalpy is

dH = dU + p·dV + V·dp = dq + V·dp

Under isobaric conditions, which can easily be established (e.g. by open the system to atmospheric pressure), this is equal to the exchanged heat. That means the change of enthalpy can directly be determined with calorimetric measurements and the heat exchange can be calculated from a known enthalpy difference before and after the process.
The rest energy mc² is included into the internal energy and they can usually be assumed to be identical.
I strongly agree with, and relate to, this explanation. I have never seen a satisfactory (to me) physical interpretation of enthalpy (and, in my judgment, none is needed). As far as I'm concerned, enthalpy is just a very convenient property (thermodynamic function) to work with in describing the thermodynamic behavior of many different situations.

Chet
 
DrStupid said:
The rest energy mc² is included into the internal energy and they can usually be assumed to be identical.
but isn't the internal energy attributed to the Kinetic energy possessed by the atoms by virtue of the temperature or heat energy ?, so shouldn't the internal energy be zero at 0 kelvin. Therefore internal energy shouldn't contain the rest energy which is independent of temperature or kinetic energy of the atoms ? Its the energy by virtue of its mass and not by its motion ?
 
This question arised from the description of enthalpy here https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-intuitive-explanations-of-internal-energy-and-enthalpy
I am attaching the snipped that the author had presented there.

Capture.PNG

I felt to create the system, we first need energy to create matter itself and that is not being considered.
 
vjanandr said:
but isn't the internal energy attributed to the Kinetic energy possessed by the atoms by virtue of the temperature or heat energy ?

Internal energy is the sum of all energies of a system except the kinetic energy of the whole system and its potential energy in external fields. That means it consists not only of the thermal energy but of any kind of energy within the system including internal potential energy, rest energies of particles and even vacuum energy.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vjanandr

Similar threads

  • · Replies 50 ·
2
Replies
50
Views
6K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
18K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
Replies
12
Views
3K