What Is the Relationship Between Free Energy and Magnetisation?

  • Thread starter Thread starter T-7
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Susceptibility
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the relationship between free energy (F) and magnetization (M) in the context of statistical mechanics, specifically for a system of independent spin-1/2 paramagnets in a magnetic field. Participants are exploring the derivation of expressions related to free energy and magnetization, as well as the partition function and susceptibility.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to derive the relationship between free energy and magnetization, questioning the derivation of the expression for F. Some participants suggest clarifying the differential forms of free energy and magnetization. Others raise concerns about the original poster's notation and the implications of extensive properties in thermodynamics.

Discussion Status

The discussion is active, with participants providing corrections and alternative perspectives on the relationships being examined. There is an ongoing exploration of the definitions and derivations involved, but no consensus has been reached regarding the correct expressions or their derivations.

Contextual Notes

Participants are navigating potential confusion regarding the notation and definitions used in thermodynamics, particularly in the context of magnetic systems. There are references to external sources and literature that may provide additional insights, but these have not been fully integrated into the discussion.

T-7
Messages
62
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



1. State a relationship between the free energy, F, and the magnetisation, M.

2. State a partition function for the case of a system of N independent spin-1/2 paramagnets in a field, and derive an expression for its susceptibility.

The Attempt at a Solution



(1) Looking in my notes, I see that [tex]dF = - MdH - SdT[/tex] (*). It follows, then, that

[tex]M = \left(-\frac{\partial F}{\partial H}\right)_{T}[/tex]

That's the question answered, but I wonder how one arrives at this expression for F.

I know that [tex]F = U - TS[/tex] and [tex]dW = - HdM[/tex], so it would seem that

[tex]dF = TdS - dW - TdS - SdT = -dW - SdT = HdM - SdT[/tex]

ie. not [tex]MdH[/tex]. Could someone show me how (*) is derived?

(2) For the whole system, I find that

[tex]Z = 2^{N}cosh^{N}(\beta\mu H)[/tex] ([tex]H[/tex] is my field, [tex]\mu[/tex] is the Bohr magneton )

I thus find the free energy to be

[tex]F = -kTN.log[2cosh(\beta\mu H)][/tex]

And thus, by the relationship stated above,

[tex]M = N\mu tanh(\frac{\mu H}{kT})[/tex]

The susceptibility, I presume, is [tex]\frac{\partial M}{\partial H}\right)[/tex]. It comes out for me as

[tex]\frac{N\mu^{2}}{kT} sech^{2}(\frac{\mu H}{kT})[/tex]

(which, I find, tends to [tex]\frac{N\mu^{2}}{kT}[/tex] in the limit of low field or high temperature.

Does that seem sensible?

Cheers!
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Your post contains some confusion. First, your equation (*) for Helmholtz free energy should be written with dF rather than F.

Here's a quick trick that may be helpful for treating the magnetization. How can we decide without derivation whether dW is HdM or MdH? Well, the differential energy dF is extensive (depends on volume), and only HdM depends differentially on a volume-dependent quantity M. Accordingly

[tex]dF=HdM-SdT.[/tex] This should replace your (*).

From this we can say that [tex]H=(\partial F/\partial M)_{T}[/tex].

To get M, we need to define a new quantity, usually called Gibbs free energy,

[tex]G=F-HM.[/tex] By Legendre transformation,

[tex]dG=-SdT-MdH[/tex]

and

[tex]M=-(\partial G/\partial H)_T[/tex].

So I don't get your result for part 1...

EDIT: oops, corrected signs
 
Last edited:
marcusl said:
Your post contains some confusion. First, your equation (*) for Helmholtz free energy should be written with dF rather than F.

Sorry. That was a typo.

Here's a quick trick that may be helpful for treating the magnetization. How can we decide without derivation whether dW is -HdM or -MdH? Well, the differential energy dF is extensive (depends on volume), and only -HdM depends differentially on a volume-dependent quantity M. Accordingly

[tex]dF=-HdM-SdT.[/tex] This should replace your (*).

Hmmm... I find in 'Statistical Mechanics, A Survival Guide', by Glazer and Wark, that the result [tex]dF = - MdB - SdT[/tex] (the one I have written down) is stated as a known result on pg. 34 (without proof: "from our knowledge of thermodynamics we know that for a magnetic system..."), followed by the expression

[tex]M = \left(-\frac{\partial F}{\partial B}\right)_{T}[/tex]

(I'm using H, of course, rather than B)

But I'm not sure how they arrived at that expression for dF...
 
Last edited:
Looking around online I found this
http://www.cmp.caltech.edu/refael/phys127/notes10new.pdf"
where Eqs. (12)-(13) seem to match if you replace my [tex]G[/tex] with his [tex]\mathcal{F}[/tex].

Anyone else?

EDIT: removed comment about free energy.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K