Why Describe the Extensive State Using Intensive and Extensive Variables?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bert
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Variables
AI Thread Summary
Describing the extensive state of a system requires both intensive and extensive variables to capture its complete thermodynamic behavior. For example, internal energy (U) is extensive and can be expressed using the equation U=n(3/2)RT, where n is extensive and temperature (T) is intensive. However, in general thermodynamics, U is often represented as a function of entropy (S) and volume (V), which also requires only two variables. In contrast, the Gibbs free energy (G) depends on pressure (p) and temperature (T), both of which are intensive, indicating that additional variables are necessary for a complete description. This highlights the complexity of thermodynamic systems and the need for a careful selection of variables.
Bert
Messages
28
Reaction score
0
Hello,
In my book:
[PLAIN]http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/6264/variabelwk1.jpg[/PLAIN]

But why do the tell me that the need do discribe the extensieve state of a system by using intensive and at least one extensive variable?

Thanks a lot.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Hello Bert: you are probably retired from PF by now but the issue might be interesting for others too:
we take a system consisting of 1 kind of species present (we take helium). internal energy U is an extensive quantity so we need 1+2=3 variables to know it. But U=n(3/2)RT, so here two variables seem to be sufficient, with n extensive and T intensive. In general thermodynamics takes U=U(S,V) which also has only 2 varibles, but for G=G(p,T) 2 would not be enough because both p and T are intensive. ??
Sorry for the mess.
 
I don't get how to argue it. i can prove: evolution is the ability to adapt, whether it's progression or regression from some point of view, so if evolution is not constant then animal generations couldn`t stay alive for a big amount of time because when climate is changing this generations die. but they dont. so evolution is constant. but its not an argument, right? how to fing arguments when i only prove it.. analytically, i guess it called that (this is indirectly related to biology, im...
Back
Top