What Is the Relation of Chemical Potentials in Hydrogen Atom Ionization?

cozycoz

Homework Statement


In hydrogen atom ionization H→p+e show that ##μ_H=μ_p+μ_r##

Homework Equations


G=μN (N is the number of particles)

The Attempt at a Solution


(1) I think the question should say "Find chemical potential relation AT EQUILIBRIUM", don't you think?
(2) My professor said that because ##dN_H=-dN_p=-dN_e=dN##, the change of gibbs energy becomes dG=μ_HdN_H+μ_pdN_p+μ_edN_e<br /> =(μ_H-μ_p-μ_e)dN And the equilibrium occurs when dG=0, we can derive above relation.
But chemical potential also depends on N, so I think I can't simply write dG as above(cause extra ##\frac{∂μ}{∂N}N## terms should be included). How do you think?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
When there are several species, each has its own chemical potential so the total Gibbs free energy has to be written as:

G = μH NH + μp Np + μe Ne
 
I think that, from the Gibbs-Duhem equation, we know that, at equilibrium, $$N_Hd\mu_H+N_pd\mu_p+N_ed\mu_e=0$$. This is pretty much the same thing that @Lord Jestocost said.
 
  • Like
Likes DrClaude and Lord Jestocost
Maybe I'm reading too much into this, but I think where @cozycoz is getting hung up is the notion that
$$dG \neq \mu dN + Nd\mu$$
but rather
$$dG = \mu dN$$
The best way I can think to explain this is to look at the definition of ##G##: ##G = U-TS+pV##. Here, the dependence on ##\mu## and ##N## is entirely contained within the definition of internal energy ##U##. But ##U## is defined as a function of extensive variables only: ##U = U(S,V,N)##. So taking the total differential of ##U## gives;
$$dU = \frac{\partial U}{\partial S}dS + \frac{\partial U}{\partial V}dV +\frac{\partial U}{\partial N}dN$$
and we define ##\frac{\partial U}{\partial S} \equiv T##, ##\frac{\partial U}{\partial V} \equiv p##, ##\frac{\partial U}{\partial N} \equiv \mu##.
 
  • Like
Likes DrClaude
TeethWhitener said:
Maybe I'm reading too much into this, but I think where @cozycoz is getting hung up is the notion that
$$dG \neq \mu dN + Nd\mu$$
For a single chemical species at equilibrium, this should be an equality, since, from the Clausius-Duhem equation, $$-SdT+VdP+Nd\mu=0$$
 
Thread 'Need help understanding this figure on energy levels'
This figure is from "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" by Griffiths (3rd edition). It is available to download. It is from page 142. I am hoping the usual people on this site will give me a hand understanding what is going on in the figure. After the equation (4.50) it says "It is customary to introduce the principal quantum number, ##n##, which simply orders the allowed energies, starting with 1 for the ground state. (see the figure)" I still don't understand the figure :( Here is...
Thread 'Understanding how to "tack on" the time wiggle factor'
The last problem I posted on QM made it into advanced homework help, that is why I am putting it here. I am sorry for any hassle imposed on the moderators by myself. Part (a) is quite easy. We get $$\sigma_1 = 2\lambda, \mathbf{v}_1 = \begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ 0 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_2 = \lambda, \mathbf{v}_2 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_3 = -\lambda, \mathbf{v}_3 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ -1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} $$ There are two ways...
Back
Top