Quantcast
  • Register
PhysicsOverflow is a next-generation academic platform for physicists and astronomers, including a community peer review system and a postgraduate-level discussion forum analogous to MathOverflow.

Welcome to PhysicsOverflow! PhysicsOverflow is an open platform for community peer review and graduate-level Physics discussion.

Please help promote PhysicsOverflow ads elsewhere if you like it.

News

New features!

Please do help out in categorising submissions. Submit a paper to PhysicsOverflow!

... see more

Tools for paper authors

Submit paper
Claim Paper Authorship

Tools for SE users

Search User
Reclaim SE Account
Request Account Merger
Nativise imported posts
Claim post (deleted users)
Import SE post

Users whose questions have been imported from Physics Stack Exchange, Theoretical Physics Stack Exchange, or any other Stack Exchange site are kindly requested to reclaim their account and not to register as a new user.

Public \(\beta\) tools

Report a bug with a feature
Request a new functionality
404 page design
Send feedback

Attributions

(propose a free ad)

Site Statistics

123 submissions , 104 unreviewed
3,547 questions , 1,198 unanswered
4,549 answers , 19,357 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
410 active unimported users
More ...

$(\mu,P,T)$ pseudo-ensemble: why is it not a proper thermodynamic ensemble?

+ 23 like - 0 dislike
699 views

While teaching statistical mechanics, and describing the common thermodynamic ensembles (microcanonical, canonical, grand canonical), I usually give a line on why there can be no $(\mu, P, T)$ thermodynamic ensemble ($\mu$ being the chemical potential, $P$ being the pressure, and $T$ being the temperature). My usual explanation is a handwaving that all of the control parameters would be intensive, which leaves all the extensive conjugated parameters unbounded, and you can't write your sums and integrals anymore.

However, I have always felt uneasy because:

  1. I never was able to properly convince myself where exactly the problem arose in a formal derivation of the ensemble (I am a chemist and as such, my learning of statistical mechanics didn't dwell on formal derivations).

  2. I know that the $(\mu, P, T)$ can actually be used for example for numerical simulations, if you rely on limited sampling to keep you out of harm's way (see, for example, F. A. Escobedo, J. Chem. Phys., 1998). (Be sure to call it a pseudo-ensemble if you want to publish it, though.)

So, I would like to ask how to address point #1 above: how can you properly demonstrate how chaos would arise from the equations of statistical mechanisms if one defines a $(\mu, P, T)$ ensemble?


This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)

asked Sep 14, 2011 in Theoretical Physics by F'x (175 points) [ revision history ]
retagged May 12, 2014 by dimension10
What does 'P' stand for? If you mean pressure - 'p' (lowercase) is a more common notation (in general, except for the temperature - lowercase for intensive variables, while uppercase for extensive).

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
@Piot: I edited to clarify, $P$ is pressure. I've seen it both lowercase and uppercase depending on textbooks.

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)

The simplest answer is that all three variables are intensive. 

2 Answers

+ 17 like - 0 dislike

If you have only one species of particles then working with $(\mu,p,T)$ ensemble does not make sense, as its thermodynamic potential is $0$.

$$U = TS -pV + \mu N,$$ so the Legendre transformation in all of its variables (i.e. $S-T$, $V-(-p)$ and $N-\mu$) $$U[T,p,\mu] = U - TS + pV - \mu N$$ is always zero.

The fact is called Gibbs-Duhem relation, i.e. $$0 = d(U[T,p,\mu]) = -S dT + V dp - N d\mu.$$

However, if you have more species of particles, you can work with a thermodynamic potential as long as you have at least one extensive variable (e.g. number of one species of particles).

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
answered Sep 15, 2011 by Piotr Migdal (1,250 points) [ no revision ]
+ 1 like - 0 dislike

A thermodynamic setting in which $T,P,\mu$ figure as the basic variables, and everything else is derived from it, can be found in http://www.mat.univie.ac.at/~neum/ms/phenTherm.pdf

The key is to define in place of the thermodynamic potential a function that vanishes identically in equilibrium, whose derivatives are, up to a scale, the standard extensive thermodynamic variables. 

The setting is very close to the grand canonical ensemble. 

answered Apr 19, 2014 by Arnold Neumaier (11,395 points) [ no revision ]

Your answer

Please use answers only to (at least partly) answer questions. To comment, discuss, or ask for clarification, leave a comment instead.
To mask links under text, please type your text, highlight it, and click the "link" button. You can then enter your link URL.
Please consult the FAQ for as to how to format your post.
This is the answer box; if you want to write a comment instead, please use the 'add comment' button.
Live preview (may slow down editor)   Preview
Your name to display (optional):
Privacy: Your email address will only be used for sending these notifications.
Anti-spam verification:
If you are a human please identify the position of the character covered by the symbol $\varnothing$ in the following word:
p$\hbar$ys$\varnothing$csOverflow
Then drag the red bullet below over the corresponding character of our banner. When you drop it there, the bullet changes to green (on slow internet connections after a few seconds).
To avoid this verification in future, please log in or register.




user contributions licensed under cc by-sa 3.0 with attribution required

Your rights
...