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 printer friendly PO pages!

Migration to Bielefeld University was successful!

Please vote for this year's PhysicsOverflow ads!

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

145 submissions , 122 unreviewed
3,930 questions , 1,398 unanswered
4,862 answers , 20,637 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
502 active unimported users
More ...

Gibbs free energy in second-order phase transitions

+ 3 like - 0 dislike
151 views

In chapter 16 of K.Huang's book Statisical Mechanics ("Critical Phenomena") the order parameter $M$ and its conjugate field $H$ are introduced. 

The author then claims that if we use $H$ and $T$ as independent thermodynamic variables, we can derive all thermodynamic functions from the Gibbs free energy $G(H,T)$, which is given by

$$Q(H,T)=e^{-\beta G(H,T)}$$

My question is: why is this expression identified with the Gibbs free energy? Since we are in the canonical ensemble, shouldn't the Gibbs free energy be given by the expression

$$Q(V,T)=e^{-\beta (G-PV)}$$

which comes from

$$Q(V,T)=e^{-\beta F(V,T)}$$

and 

$$G=F+PV$$

where $F$ is the Helmoltz free energy? Has it something to do with the fact that we are using the variable $H$ and not $P$ or $V$?

I find also confusing the fact that $G$ does not depend on $P$. In Landau's book Statistical Physics, chapter XIV, the Gibbs free energy $\Phi$ is written as a function of $T,P,\eta$, where $\eta$ is the order parameter. But since $\Phi$ must satisfy $\partial \Phi /\partial \eta =0$ at equilibrium, $\Phi$ is actually a function only of $T,P$.

This seems to be in contradiction with the formula used by Huang. What am I missing?

asked Jul 7, 2016 in Theoretical Physics by valerio (15 points) [ no revision ]

Most magnetic systems can be treated as being incompressible to a good approximation. If you want to account for coupling between mechanical pressure and magnetization, however, then $P$ and $V$ should be included as thermodynamic variables (this would be relevant, for example, in describing the magnetic behavior of a gas of Fermions). As for the interpretation of Gibbs free energy for magnetic systems, it depends somewhat on your convention for internal energy---whether you define it as the energy associated with interactions within the sample, or whether you also include the interaction energy with the external field. 

1 Answer

+ 3 like - 0 dislike

Sorry, physicists are slack in terminology, and it's not Gibbs energy.

There're many "free energies", connected by Legendre transform, and each doesn't have its name. (You can't name them all.) For magnetism, T and H form a natural set of variables, neglecting pressure. I guess Huang calls it "Gibbs energy" since its all arguments are intensive variables. But it's bad and you shouldn't follow suit.

Sometimes when you take the sum of all values of an extensive variable (say in Monte Carlo simulation) it is called "grand canonical", even if that variable is not $N$. For example in Ising model, when you fix $M$ it is sometimes called "canonical", and when you fix $H$ and let $M$ vary, it is "grand canonical".

I don't mean pressure is not important. In some experiments samples are put under extremely high pressure, but for most solids tripling the pressure from 1 atm hardly changes the material's behavior. (See also a nice comment by an anonymous user.)

BTW: When you ask next time, be sure to state exactly where it is the equation you're referring to. Not only "chap 16", but "sec 16.1" or "in eq 16.2", and also "Huang's 2nd edition". (It's not frequent, but pages can change, e.g. in epub. I don't recommend spcification by the pages.) Remember those who answer (and those who read) spare their precious time for the forum participants. (Each way of communication has its own difficulty, in person, online, etc. ;-)

answered Jul 15, 2016 by teika kazura (100 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$\hbar$ysi$\varnothing$sOverflow
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
...