Why is rotational energy not included in the Hamiltonian for an ideal gas?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the exclusion of rotational energy in the Hamiltonian for an ideal gas, particularly focusing on the implications for heat capacity derived from the equipartition theorem. The scope includes theoretical considerations of monoatomic and diatomic gases, as well as quantum mechanical aspects of atomic rotation.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants note that the Hamiltonian for an ideal gas does not include rotational energy, particularly for monoatomic gases, leading to a heat capacity of 3/2 k N.
  • Others clarify that for diatomic gases, rotational kinetic energy is included, contributing an additional Nk to the heat capacity due to the presence of two internal angles.
  • A participant questions whether a single atom can rotate on its own axis, prompting a response that this is not possible due to quantum mechanical principles.
  • One participant emphasizes the quantum mechanical limitations on the rotation of electrons around a nucleus, suggesting that classical rotation does not apply at the atomic scale.
  • Another participant discusses the energy levels of hydrogen atoms, explaining that the low-lying rotational excitations correspond to electronic transitions that occur at high temperatures, thus not relevant at ordinary temperatures.
  • There is a request for clarification on the calculation of energy differences between atomic states, leading to a technical exchange about the energy levels of hydrogen.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree that rotational energy is excluded for monoatomic gases, while acknowledging that diatomic gases do include it. However, there is disagreement regarding the nature of atomic rotation and the implications of quantum mechanics, which remains unresolved.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights the dependence on the classification of gases (monoatomic vs. diatomic) and the limitations of classical mechanics when applied to quantum systems. There are unresolved aspects regarding the implications of quantum mechanics on atomic rotation and energy transitions.

DreadyPhysics
Messages
21
Reaction score
0
When using the equipartition theorem to derive the heat capacity of an ideal gas, you have
[tex]\left\langle H \right\rangle=\left\langle \frac{1}{2}m\left(v^{2}_{x}+v^{2}_{y}+v^{2}_{z} \right) \right\rangle[/tex]

and each degree of freedom contributes 1/2 kT to the total energy and 1/2 k to the total heat capacity, hence the total heat capacity is 3/2 k N .

My question is, why doesn't the Hamiltonian include the rotational energy? Is this what we mean by "ideal gas"? But even if it is an idealized approximation, why then should it give applicable real-world results when applied to real gases that presumably have rotational energies? There must be a deeper physical reason why we can discard rotational energy when dealing with gases.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
This is considering just a monoatomic gas, such as any of the noble gases. For a diatomic gas you would include rotational kinetic energy, and it would end up adding an additional Nk to the heat capacity since there are two internal angles to specify the orientation of a diatomic molecule.
 
But cannot a single atom rotate on its own axis like a top?
 
Nope. Though the reasons are pretty deep in quantum.
 
Well it would be nice to have some reference to those reasons :)
 
DreadyPhysics said:
When using the equipartition theorem to derive the heat capacity of an ideal gas, you have
[tex]\left\langle H \right\rangle=\left\langle \frac{1}{2}m\left(v^{2}_{x}+v^{2}_{y}+v^{2}_{z} \right) \right\rangle[/tex]

and each degree of freedom contributes 1/2 kT to the total energy and 1/2 k to the total heat capacity, hence the total heat capacity is 3/2 k N .

My question is, why doesn't the Hamiltonian include the rotational energy? Is this what we mean by "ideal gas"? But even if it is an idealized approximation, why then should it give applicable real-world results when applied to real gases that presumably have rotational energies? There must be a deeper physical reason why we can discard rotational energy when dealing with gases.
One can discard rotational and vibrational energy only when dealing with monatomic gases. A single atoms can't be mechanically rotated.
Classically, one can rotate an atom by rotating the position of its electrons. However, quantum mechanics dominates on the atomic scale. The position of an electron in a single atoms is indeterminate according to the uncertainty principle. Therefore, you can't rotate the electron around the atom. So you can't really rotate the atom.
 
As the nucleus is nearly a point particle, the low lying rotational excitations of an atom are rotations of the electrons around the nucleus and typically correspond to electronic transitions in the range of several eV. Hence they cannot be excited at ordinary temperatures.
E.g. in the case of a hydrogen atom, the first rotational excited state is an electron in the 2p orbital.
The 1s - 2p energy difference is 3/4 * 13.6 eV=10.2 eV. This corresponds a temperature of about 100000 K.
 
Can I ask how you calculated that 1s to 2p energy difference?
 
CAF123 said:
Can I ask how you calculated that 1s to 2p energy difference?
The energy of a Hydrogen state with main quantum number n is -13.6 eV/n² (as taught in introductionary Quantum Mechanics or Physical Chemistry courses, and also readily found on the Internet). Therefore, the energy difference between n=1 and n=2 is 13.6 eV - 13.6 eV/4 = 3/4*13.6 eV.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
4K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
3K