Why is U used instead of Q to define temperature?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter iScience
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Definition Temperature
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the definition of temperature in relation to internal energy (U) and heat (Q). Participants explore the implications of using U in the temperature formula and the roles of work and heat in temperature changes, as well as the relationship between heat and internal energy in different physical contexts.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question why temperature is defined in terms of internal energy (U) rather than heat (Q), suggesting that Q is the only energy form contributing to temperature.
  • Others argue that work also contributes to temperature changes, as illustrated by the example of swirling an arm in water, which increases temperature through work converting to internal energy.
  • There is a discussion about the quantization of heat in solids, with one participant mentioning that intermolecular vibrations can be described as phonons.
  • Some participants clarify that heat (Q) is defined as energy transferred due to temperature differences, while internal energy (U) is a state function that includes all forms of energy within a system.
  • One participant raises a question about the definition of heat as energy transfer and its implications regarding energy transfer rates, proposing a mathematical relationship between Q and energy transfer rates.
  • Another participant discusses a hypothetical scenario involving gamma rays and questions whether an object not absorbing radiation could still be considered to have heat, leading to a clarification that no energy transfer means no heat is present.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the definitions and roles of heat and internal energy, with no consensus reached on the implications of these definitions for understanding temperature. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the relationship between work, heat, and temperature.

Contextual Notes

There are limitations in the discussion regarding the definitions of heat and internal energy, as well as the assumptions made about energy transfer in various scenarios. The relationship between classical and quantum physics is also noted but not fully explored.

iScience
Messages
466
Reaction score
5
in class we learned the definition of temperature to be [itex]\frac{1}{T}[/itex]=[itex]\frac{∂S}{∂U}[/itex]

i don't understand why it's U as opposed to Q. afterall, Q is the only form of energy that contributes to temperature isn't it? If i take a bathtub of water and i swirl my arm in it, i just gave it some work, and the temperature will have gone up, but that temperature increase is due to the work being converted to Q right? So why is it the entropy per unit U as opposed to the entropy per unit heat (this would be a phonon right?)
 
Science news on Phys.org
iScience said:
in class we learned the definition of temperature to be [itex]\frac{1}{T}[/itex]=[itex]\frac{∂S}{∂U}[/itex]

i don't understand why it's U as opposed to Q. afterall, Q is the only form of energy that contributes to temperature isn't it?
No, work also contribute
If i take a bathtub of water and i swirl my arm in it, i just gave it some work, and the temperature will have gone up, but that temperature increase is due to the work being converted to Q right?
No, not right. The work is being converted into internal energy U
So why is it the entropy per unit U as opposed to the entropy per unit heat (this would be a phonon right?)
I don't understand what connection is there with a phonon.
 
I don't understand what connection is there with a phonon.

well, intermolecular vibrations of say, a solid (i don't know about the other phases, I'm guessing this only applies for solids), are quantized and i was taught therefore that the unit of heat (vibration) could be said to be quantized as phonons.
 
iScience said:
in class we learned the definition of temperature to be [itex]\frac{1}{T}[/itex]=[itex]\frac{∂S}{∂U}[/itex]

i don't understand why it's U as opposed to Q. afterall, Q is the only form of energy that contributes to temperature isn't it? If i take a bathtub of water and i swirl my arm in it, i just gave it some work, and the temperature will have gone up, but that temperature increase is due to the work being converted to Q right? So why is it the entropy per unit U as opposed to the entropy per unit heat (this would be a phonon right?)

I think this is in the wrong location. This question is classical physics, not quantum physics.

But [itex]T[/itex] is not a function of [itex]Q[/itex] alone. When you compress a gas, it gets hotter, but not because you've transmitted any heat to it.
 
iScience said:
well, intermolecular vibrations of say, a solid (i don't know about the other phases, I'm guessing this only applies for solids), are quantized and i was taught therefore that the unit of heat (vibration) could be said to be quantized as phonons.

You're confusing heat Q with internal energy U. The vibration of molecules (whether quantized or classical) is part of the internal energy U which is a function of state. The heat Q is not a function of state and has nothing to do with internal vibrations. Heat Q is energy transferred between two objects (systems) due to their difference in temperature. When energy moves from an object with a high temperature to an object at lower temperature by either radiation, or conduction, or convection, that energy is considered heat. The energy inside of an object related to its thermal state is called internal energy and is represented by the letter U.
 
I think this is in the wrong location. This question is classical physics, not quantum physics.

:O sorry! i thought i clicked classical not quantum.. no wonder i couldn't find it there.. could a moderator reading this perhaps move this thread to the classical section?


You're confusing heat Q with internal energy U. The vibration of molecules (whether quantized or classical) is part of the internal energy U which is a function of state. The heat Q is not a function of state and has nothing to do with internal vibrations. Heat Q is energy transferred between two objects (systems) due to their difference in temperature. When energy moves from an object with a high temperature to an object at lower temperature by either radiation, or conduction, or convection, that energy is considered heat. The energy inside of an object related to its thermal state is called internal energy and is represented by the letter U.

So then.. heat is defined as the TRANSFER of energy? i don't understand, if heat is inherently defined as the 'transfer' of something, well.. all transfers (as far as i know) have a rate associated with them, so why isn't it d(something)/dt?

it would make sense that the 'somethig' is energy, such that it's an energy transfer rate;
but i know this is incorrect because Q has units of energy and not power.

So then, is Q inherently an integral of the transfer rate of energy w/ respect to dt? ie..

Q=[itex]\int[/itex]Pdt

the units do match up...

When energy moves from an object with a high temperature to an object at lower temperature by either radiation, or conduction, or convection, that energy is considered heat.

say i have an object that does not interact with gamma rays, ie it doesn't absorb it. Now say that i shine gamma rays through this object of really high intensity say... I=10,00000GW/m2. if you consider an imaginary box around this object, would it then be appropriate to say that this object has a lot of heat? this just seems counter intuitive to me; again, if heat is the 'transfer' of energy, and radiation counts as "heat", then this object should then have a high internal energy even though it may be sitting at.. 4kelvin, right?
 
iScience said:
:O sorry! i thought i clicked classical not quantum.. no wonder i couldn't find it there.. could a moderator reading this perhaps move this thread to the classical section?




So then.. heat is defined as the TRANSFER of energy? i don't understand, if heat is inherently defined as the 'transfer' of something, well.. all transfers (as far as i know) have a rate associated with them, so why isn't it d(something)/dt?

it would make sense that the 'somethig' is energy, such that it's an energy transfer rate;
but i know this is incorrect because Q has units of energy and not power.

So then, is Q inherently an integral of the transfer rate of energy w/ respect to dt? ie..

Q=[itex]\int[/itex]Pdt

the units do match up...
Correct. Heat is the energy transferred over a period of time, not the transfer rate which would indeed have units of power.
say i have an object that does not interact with gamma rays, ie it doesn't absorb it. Now say that i shine gamma rays through this object of really high intensity say... I=10,00000GW/m2. if you consider an imaginary box around this object, would it then be appropriate to say that this object has a lot of heat? this just seems counter intuitive to me; again, if heat is the 'transfer' of energy, and radiation counts as "heat", then this object should then have a high internal energy even though it may be sitting at.. 4kelvin, right?

If the object doesn't absorb the radiation than no energy is being transferred.The radiation goes right through the object. There is no heat. Right now as we speak (so to speak) there are billions of neutrinos coming from the sun's core and passing right through your body (and mine). These neutrinos are not absorbed and do not heat your body.
 
Correct. Heat is the energy transferred over a period of time, not the transfer rate which would indeed have units of power.

If the object doesn't absorb the radiation than no energy is being transferred.The radiation goes right through the object. There is no heat. Right now as we speak (so to speak) there are billions of neutrinos coming from the sun's core and passing right through your body (and mine). These neutrinos are not absorbed and do not heat your body.

i got it now! thank you so much!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 45 ·
2
Replies
45
Views
6K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
6K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K