A What is the formula 1/(dS/dE)>>0 and how does it apply?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on the relationship between entropy (S), energy (E), and temperature (T) in thermodynamics, highlighting the formula 1/T = dS/dE. It clarifies that temperature is always positive in classical thermodynamics, indicating that entropy increases with energy. However, in certain quantum systems, negative temperatures can occur, where entropy decreases as energy increases, which is a unique and counterintuitive concept. The symbol ">>" signifies that temperature is significantly greater than zero. Overall, the conversation enhances understanding of these thermodynamic principles.
Shaun Harlow
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
I am only aware that the formula has to do with entropy/thermodynamics. I could really use the help on how it applies in physics and what the formula is really about.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Shaun Harlow said:
I am only aware that the formula has to do with entropy/thermodynamics. I could really use the help on how it applies in physics and what the formula is really about.

In that equation, S is the entropy and E is the energy. In thermodynamics, temperature can be defined as:

\frac{1}{T} = \frac{dS}{dE}

So your inequality just says T \gg 0. So the temperature is well above absolute zero.
 
  • Like
Likes BvU
stevendaryl said:
In that equation, S is the entropy and E is the energy. In thermodynamics, temperature can be defined as:

\frac{1}{T} = \frac{dS}{dE}

So your inequality just says T \gg 0. So the temperature is well above absolute zero.

That definition of temperature assumes that entropy increases with energy (so T is always positive), which is true for classical thermodynamics, but for systems with a discrete number of states, it's possible for S to decrease with E, which leads to the bizarre notion of a negative absolute temperature.
 
So the inequality is saying that the temperature is above zero? If so, you talk of the "bizarre notion" of a negative absolute temperature that some people infer, but that is not possible correct?
 
Shaun Harlow said:
So the inequality is saying that the temperature is above zero? If so, you talk of the "bizarre notion" of a negative absolute temperature that some people infer, but that is not possible correct?

The symbol \gg means "much greater than". So the temperature isn't just positive, it's pretty high.

Negative temperatures are not possible in classical thermodynamics, but there are quantum systems where a negative temperature is possible. A negative temperature means that the entropy goes down instead of up when the system gets more energy.
 
stevendaryl said:
That definition of temperature assumes that entropy increases with energy (so T is always positive), which is true for classical thermodynamics, but for systems with a discrete number of states, it's possible for S to decrease with E, which leads to the bizarre notion of a negative absolute temperature.
stevendaryl said:
The symbol \gg means "much greater than". So the temperature isn't just positive, it's pretty high.

Negative temperatures are not possible in classical thermodynamics, but there are quantum systems where a negative temperature is possible. A negative temperature means that the entropy goes down instead of up when the system gets more energy.

Alright! Thank you so much you have helped me better understand this and even went deeper into the meaning without making it hard to understand. I really couldn't thank you enough :)
 
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