Archive for the ‘thermodynamics’ Category

st01

I can’t think of a better introduction to this post than Ludwig Boltzmann gave in his Vorlesungen über Gastheorie (Lectures on Gas Theory, 1896):

“General thermodynamics proceeds from the fact that, as far as we can tell from our experiences up to now, all natural processes are irreversible. Hence according to the principles of phenomenology, the general thermodynamics of the second law is formulated in such a way that the unconditional irreversibility of all natural processes is asserted as a so-called axiom … [However] general thermodynamics (without prejudice to its unshakable importance) also requires the cultivation of mechanical models representing it, in order to deepen our knowledge of nature—not in spite of, but rather precisely because these models do not always cover the same ground as general thermodynamics, but instead offer a glimpse of a new viewpoint.”

Today, the work of Ludwig Boltzmann (1844-1906) is considered among the finest in physics. But in his own lifetime he faced considerable hostility from those of his contemporaries who did not believe in the atomic hypothesis. As late as 1900, the kinetic-molecular theory of heat developed by Maxwell and Boltzmann was being vigorously attacked by a school of scientists including Wilhelm Ostwald, who argued that since mechanical processes are reversible and heat conduction is not, thermal phenomena cannot be explained in terms of hidden, internal mechanical variables.

Boltzmann refuted this argument. Mechanical processes, he pointed out, are irreversible if the number of particles is sufficiently large. The spontaneous mixing of two gases is a case in point; it is known from experience that the process cannot spontaneously reverse – mixed gases don’t unmix. Today we regard this as self-evident, but in Boltzmann’s time his opponents did not believe in atoms or molecules; they considered matter to be continuous. So the attacks on Boltzmann’s theories continued.

Fortunately, this did not deter Boltzmann from pursuing his ideas, at least not to begin with. He saw that spontaneous processes could be explained in terms of probability, and that a system of many particles undergoing spontaneous change would assume – other things being equal – the most probable state, namely the one with the maximum number of arrangements. And this gave him a new way of viewing the equilibrium state.

One can see Boltzmann’s mind at work, thinking about particle systems in terms of permutations, in this quote from his Lectures on Gas Theory:

“From an urn, in which many black and an equal number of white but otherwise identical spheres are placed, let 20 purely random drawings be made. The case that only black spheres are drawn is not a hair less probable than the case that on the first draw one gets a black sphere, on the second a white, on the third a black, etc. The fact that one is more likely to get 10 black spheres and 10 white spheres in 20 drawings than one is to get 20 black spheres is due to the fact that the former event can come about in many more ways than the latter. The relative probability of the former event as compared to the latter is the number 20!/10!10!, which indicates how many permutations one can make of the terms in the series of 10 white and 10 black spheres, treating the different white spheres as identical, and the different black spheres as identical. Each one of these permutations represents an event that has the same probability as the event of all black spheres.”

– – – –

By analyzing the ways in which systems of particles distribute themselves, and the various constraints to which particle assemblies are subject, important links came to be established between the statistical properties of assemblies and their bulk thermodynamic properties.

Boltzmann’s contribution in this regard is famously commemorated in the formula inscribed on his tombstone: S = k log W. There is powerful new thinking in this equation. While the classical thermodynamic definition of entropy by Rankine and Clausius was expressed in terms of temperature and heat exchange, Boltzmann gave entropy – and its tendency to increase in natural processes – a new explanation in terms of probability. If a particle system is not in its most probable state then it will change until it is, and an equilibrium state is reached.

st02

– – – –

P Mander April 2016

Advertisements

Torricelli using a lot more mercury than necessary to demonstrate the barometer principle

The scientific study of the atmosphere can be said to have begun in 1643 with the invention of the mercury barometer by Evangelista Torricelli (1608-1647). Although the phenomenon had been observed and discussed by others – including Galileo – in the preceding decade, it was Torricelli who provided the breakthrough in understanding.

The prevailing view at the time was that air was weightless and did not exert any pressure on the mercury in the bowl. Instead, it was thought that the vacuum above the liquid in the barometer tube exerted a force of attraction that held the liquid suspended in the tube.

Torricelli challenged this view by proposing the converse argument. He asserted that air did have weight, and that the atmosphere exerted pressure on the mercury in the bowl which balanced the pressure exerted by the column of mercury. The vacuum above the mercury in the closed tube, in Torricelli’s opinion, exerted no attractive force and had no role in supporting the column of mercury in the tube*.

The assertion that air had weight, Torricelli realized, could be tested. In elevated places like mountains the reduced weight of the overlying atmosphere would exert less pressure, so the corresponding height of the mercury column in the barometer tube should be lower. It seems that Torricelli did not have the opportunity in his short life to do this experiment, but in the year following his death the experiment was carried out in France at the behest of the scientific philosopher Blaise Pascal (1623-1662).

*CarnotCycle wonders if Torricelli tilted the barometer tube and observed the disappearance of the space above the mercury – see diagram below. This would have shown that something other than a vacuum held the liquid suspended in the tube.

– – – –

The Torricelli experiment

In 1644 the French salon theorist Marin Mersenne (1588-1648) travelled to Italy where he learned of Torricelli’s barometer experiment. He brought news of the experiment back with him to Paris, where the young Blaise Pascal was a regular attendant at Mersenne’s salon meetings.

Puy de Dôme in south-central France, close to Clermont-Ferrand

Pascal had moved to Paris from his childhood home of Clermont-Ferrand. The 1,465 meter high Puy de Dôme was a familiar feature in the landscape he knew as a youngster, and it provided an ideal means of testing Torricelli’s thesis. Pascal’s brother-in-law Florin Périer lived in Clermont-Ferrand, and after some friendly persuasion, Périer ascended Puy de Dôme with a Torricellian barometer, taking measurements as he climbed.

The Torricelli experiment was conducted by Florin Périer on Puy de Dôme on Saturday 19 September 1648

At the base of the mountain, Périer recorded a mercury column height of 26 inches and 3½ lines. He then asked a colleague to observe this barometer throughout the day to see if any change occurred, while he set off with another barometer to climb the mountain. At the summit he recorded a mercury column height of 23 inches and 2 lines, substantially less than the measurement taken 1,465 meters below, where the barometer had remained steady.

The Puy de Dôme experiment provided convincing evidence that it was the weight of air, and thus atmospheric pressure, that balanced the weight of the mercury column.

– – – –

Measuring pressure

A 14th century shopkeeper weighing out sugar cubes using hand-held scales

When Florin Périer conducted the Torricelli experiment on Puy de Dôme in 1648, the measurements he recorded were the heights of mercury columns in barometer tubes. From these measurements, Blaise Pascal inferred a comparison of atmospheric pressures at the top and bottom of the mountain.

This experiment took place, we should remind ourselves, when Isaac Newton was only 5 years old and had not yet formulated his famous laws which gave concepts like mass, weight, force and pressure a systematic, mathematical foundation. In the pre-Newtonian world of Torricelli and Pascal, their thinking was based on the balancing of weights in the familiar sense of a shopkeeper’s scales. The weight of the mercury column in the barometer tube, which acted on the mercury in the bowl, was balanced by the weight of the air acting on the mercury in the bowl. Since the height of the mercury column was directly proportional to its weight, it was valid to use a length scale marked on the barometer tube to compute the weight of the air acting on the mercury in the bowl.

It is instructive to compare the language of Robert Boyle (1627-1691) and Isaac Newton (1643-1727) when discussing the barometer in the decades which followed. In the second edition of Boyle’s New Experiments Physico-Mechanicall of 1662 – which contains the first statement of Boyle’s Law – the word pressure appears frequently and has a meaning synonymous with weight. In Isaac Newton’s Principia of 1687, pressure is regarded as a manifestation of force. Boyle and Newton are thus speaking in essentially the same terms since according to Newtonian principles, weight is a force.

– – – –

Newtonian principles applied

The crucial advance in atmospheric science that Newton supplied in his Principia was the second law, which gave mathematical expression to force, and thus to weight and pressure, through the famous formula

The weight of a mercury column of cross-sectional area A and height h is

where ρ is the mass density of mercury and g is the acceleration due to gravity. The pressure exerted by the mercury column, which balances the atmospheric pressure, is

Thus P is directly proportional to h.

For a column of mercury 1 mm in height in a standard gravitational field (g = 9.80665 ms-2) at 273K, P is equal to 133.322 pascals. This is a unit of pressure called the torr. Pascal and Torricelli are thus both commemorated in units of pressure.

– – – –

A question of balance

Torricelli, Pascal and Boyle were in agreement with the proposition that air has weight. According to Newton’s interpretation the atmosphere possesses mass which is subject to gravitational acceleration, resulting in a downward force. This raises the question – Why doesn’t the sky fall down?

Since the sky is observed to remain aloft, there must exist a counteracting upward force. The vital clue as to the nature of this force was obtained on Pascal’s behalf by Florin Périer on Puy de Dôme in 1648 – namely that pressure decreases with height in the atmosphere.

A difference in pressure produces a force. In this way a parcel of air in a vertical column of cross-sectional area A exerts a force in the opposite direction to the gravitational force, as shown in the diagram.

At equilibrium, the forces are equal. Thus

where ρ is the density of the air.

– – – –

The decrease of temperature with altitude

A snow-capped Puy de Dôme

The appearance of snow above a certain height in elevated places provides plain evidence that temperature decreases with altitude, at least in that part of the atmosphere into which our earthly landscape protrudes. No doubt Torricelli, Pascal and other scientific philosophers of their time noticed this phenomenon and pondered upon it. But the explanation had to wait for another two centuries until the industrial revolution began, ushering in the age of steam and the associated science of thermodynamics.

The air in the troposphere, the lowest layer of the atmosphere where almost all weather phenomena occur, exhibits convection currents which continually transport air from lower regions to higher ones, and from higher regions to lower ones. When air rises it expands as the pressure decreases and so does work on the air around it. Thermodynamic principles dictate that this work requires the expenditure of heat, which has to come from within since air is a poor conductor and very little heat is transferred from the surroundings. As a result, rising air cools.

– – – –

Atmospheric convection processes fall within the province of the first law of thermodynamics, which can be expressed mathematically (see Appendix I) as

This equation states an energy conservation principle that applies to processes involving heat, work and internal energy. The atmospheric convection process is adiabatic meaning that no heat flows into or out of the system i.e. dQ = 0. Applying this constraint and using the combined gas equation to eliminate pressure p the above equation becomes

Integration yields

Converting from logarithms to numbers gives

Since by Mayer’s relation R = CP – CV

where γ = CP / CV. Using the combined gas equation to substitute V, the above equation can be rendered (with the help of γ√) as

Applying logarithmic differentiation gives

Assuming hydrostatic equilibrium, dp can be substituted giving

Since ρ = m/(RT/p) the above becomes

This adiabatic convection equation gives the rate at which the temperature of dry air falls with increasing altitude. Taking the following values: γ = 1.4 (dimensionless) ; R = 8.314 kgm2s-2 K-1 mol-1 ; m = 0.0288 kg mol-1 ; g = 9.80665 ms-2 gives

At the top of Puy de Dôme (1465 meters), dry air will be 14°C cooler than at the base of the mountain. This explains why snow can appear on the summit while the grass is still growing on the lower slopes.

– – – –

Appendix I

Benoît Émile Clapeyron (1799-1864)

In 1834, more than a century after Newton’s death, the French physicist and engineer Émile Clapeyron wrote a monograph entitled Mémoire sur la Puissance Motrice de la Chaleur (Memoir on the Motive Power of Heat). It contains the first appearance in print of the ideal gas equation, which combines the gas law of Boyle-Mariotte (PV)T = k with that of Gay-Lussac (V/T)P = k. Clapeyron wrote it in the form

where R is a constant and the sum of the terms in parentheses can be regarded as the thermodynamic temperature.

Sixteen years later in 1850, the German physicist Rudolf Clausius wrote a monograph on the same subject entitled Ueber die bewegende Kraft der Wärme und die Gesetze, welche sich daraus fuer die Wärmelehre selbst ableiten lassen (On the Motive Power of Heat, and on the Laws which can be deduced from it for the Theory of Heat). Seeking an analytical expression of the principle that a certain amount of work necessitates the expenditure of a proportional quantity of heat, he arrived at the following differential equation in the case of an ideal gas

where Q is the heat expended, U is an arbitrary function of temperature and volume, and A is the mechanical equivalent of heat. Earlier in his paper Clausius had represented Clapeyron’s combined statement of the laws of Boyle-Mariotte and Gay-Lussac as pv = R(a + t) so he recognized the right-hand term as corresponding to pdv, the external work done during the change

We know this equation today as an expression of the first law of thermodynamics, where U is the internal energy of the system under consideration.

U is a function of T and V so we may write the partial differential equation

Since U for an ideal gas is independent of volume and dU/dT is the heat capacity at constant volume CV, the first law for an ideal gas takes on the form

– – – –

P Mander January 2018

This prototype displays temperature, relative humidity, dew point temperature and absolute humidity

As shown in previous posts on the CarnotCycle blog, it is possible to compute dew point temperature and absolute humidity (defined as water vapor density in g/m^3) from ambient temperature and relative humidity. This adds value to the output of RH&T sensors like the DHT22 pictured above, and extends the range of useful parameters that can be displayed or toggled on temperature-humidity gauges employing these sensors.

Meteorological opinion* suggests that dew point temperature is a more dependable parameter than relative humidity for assessing climate comfort especially during summer, while absolute humidity quantifies water vapor in terms of mass per unit volume. In effect this added parameter turns an ordinary temperature-humidity gauge into a gas analyzer.

*https://www.weather.gov/arx/why_dewpoint_vs_humidity

– – – –

Hardware

I used an Arduino Uno microprocessor and a wired DHT22 sensor with data output to a 16×2 liquid crystal display. Circuit components are uncomplicated: a 10 kΩ potentiometer, 220 Ω resistor and a few jumper and breadboard wires are all that is needed, power supplied by a 9V battery* after programming via USB.

*http://www.instructables.com/id/Powering-Arduino-with-a-Battery/

– – – –

Circuitry

I wired the LCD as per guidance on the Arduino website. The pot controls contrast on the LCD. The DHT22 was wired to take 5V from the breadboard power rail with sensor data routed to digital pin 7. The sensor version that I used (Adafruit AM2302) has a built-in 5.1 kΩ pull-up resistor.

– – – –

Code

The DHT22 has a sampling rate of 0.5 Hz which some regard as a weakness, but in the context of a temperature-humidity gauge the criticism is rather academic since it would serve no purpose to output data to the LCD at such a rapid rate. I set the display refresh to 30 seconds. Note the built-in option to display ambient temperature and dew point temperature in Celsius or Fahrenheit.

– – – –

Experiment

I used the unit to investigate the change in temperature and humidity parameters in a bathroom (enclosed volume 11.6 m^3) before and after operating the shower at a temperature of 40°C for about 5 minutes. The sensor was placed 60 cm above floor level at the midpoint of the room.

Here is the data display before the shower

and after the shower

The displayed data shows that bathroom temperature stayed constant during the experiment while the relative humidity increased markedly. This result could have been obtained with an ordinary temperature-humidity gauge, but the smart gauge gives additional information.

In contrast to the steady ambient temperature, the dewpoint temperature shows a sharp rise from a comfortable 11.8°C (53°F) to a humid 18.3°C (65°F). The absolute humidity data shows an even greater increase – a 50% hike in water vapor concentration from 10 to 15 grams per m^3 in a matter of minutes.

– – – –

© P Mander, June 2018

A couple of blocks down from the Metro station Jussieu in Paris’s 5th arrondisement lies Rue Cuvier, which runs along the north-western edge of the botanic gardens which houses the Natural History Museum. The other side of the road is bordered by various institutes of the Sorbonne, notably UPMC (formerly Pierre and Marie Curie University).

The Curies have historical associations with a number of streets in the Latin Quarter, and Rue Cuvier in particular. Pierre Curie was born at No.16 and it was in a science faculty building in this street that the Curies conducted their fundamental research on radium between 1903 and 1914. The building still exists, shielded from public curiosity by a set of prison-style metal gates, and it was in this laboratory that the first pioneering research into what would later be recognized as nuclear energy was conducted in 1903.

Yet it was not the renowned husband-and-wife team which carried out this experiment. It was in fact Pierre Curie and his young graduate assistent Albert Laborde who did the work and reported it in Comptes Rendus in a note entitled Sur la chaleur dégagée spontanément par les sels de radium (On the spontaneous production of heat by radium salts). The note, which barely covers two pages, was published in March 1903.

The laboratory in Rue Cuvier where the Curies and Laborde worked was at No.12. Just across the street is No.57, which once housed the Appled Physics laboratory of the Natural History Museum. It was here in 1896 that Henri Becquerel serendipitously discovered the strange phenomenon of radioactivity.

Between that moment of discovery on one side of Rue Cuvier and Curie and Laborde’s remarkable experiment on the other, lay the years of backbreaking work in a shed in nearby Rue Vauquelin where the Curies, together with chemist Gustave Bémont, processed tons of waste from an Austrian uranium mine in order to extract a fraction of a gram* of the mysterious new element radium.

*the maximum amount of radium coexisting with uranium is in the ratio of their half-lives. This means that uranium ores can contain no more than 1 atom of radium for every 2.8 million atoms of uranium.

– – – –

The Curie – Laborde experiment

Albert Laborde (left) and Pierre Curie, in 1901 and 1903 respectively

Pierre Curie and Albert Laborde were the first to make an experimental determination of the heat produced by radium because they were the first to have enough radium-enriched material to make the experiment practicable. It was a close-run thing though. Ernest Rutherford and Frederick Soddy had been busy working on radioactivity at McGill University in Canada since 1900, but they were hampered by lack of access to radium and were using much weaker thorium preparations. This situation would quickly change however when concentrated radium samples became available from Friedrich Giesel in Germany. By the summer of 1903, Soddy (now at University College London) and Rutherford would have their hands on Giesel’s supply. But Curie and Laborde had a head start, and they turned their narrow time advantage to good account.

Methodology

To determine the heat produced by their radium preparation, they used two different approaches – a thermoelectric method, and an ice calorimeter method.

This diagram of their thermoelectric device, taken from Mme Curie’s Traité de Radioactivité (1910), Tome II, p272, unfortunately lacks an explanation of the key, but the set-up essentially comprises a test ampoule containing the chloride salt of radium-enriched barium and a control ampoule of pure barium chloride. These are marked A and A’. The ampoules are placed in the cavities of brass blocks enclosed in inverted Dewar flasks D, D’ with some unstated packing material to keep the ampoules from falling down. The flasks are enclosed in containers immersed in a further medium-filled container E supported in a space enclosed by a medium F, all of which was presumably designed to ensure a constant temperature environment. The key feature is C and C’ which are iron-constantan thermocouples, embedded in the brass cavities, with their associated circuitry.

The current produced by the Seebeck effect resulting from the temperature difference between C and C’ was measured by a galvanometer. The radium ampoule was then replaced by an ampoule containing a platinum filament through which was passed a current whose heating effect was sufficient to obtain the same temperature difference. The equivalent rate of heat production by the radium ampoule could then be calulated using Joule’s law.

The second method used was a Bunsen calorimeter, which was known to be capable of very exact measurements using only a small quantity of the test substance. For details of the operational principleof this calorimeter, the reader is referred to this link:

http://thewaythetruthandthelife.net/index/2_background/2-1_cosmological/physics/j9.htm

The above diagram of the Bunsen calorimeter is taken from Mme Curie’s Traité de Radioactivité (1910), Tome II, p273.

Results

For most of their experiments, Curie and Laborde used 1 gram of a radium-enriched barium chloride preparation, which liberated approximately 14 calories (59 joules) of heat per hour. It was estimated from radioactivity measurements – no doubt using the quartz electrometer instrumentation invented by Curie – that the gram of test substance contained about one sixth of a gram of radium.

Measurements were also made on a 0.08 gram sample of pure radium chloride. These yielded results of the same order of magnitude without being absolutely in agreement. Curie and Laborde made it clear in their note that these were pathfinding experiments and that their aim was solely to demonstrate the fact of continuous, spontaneous emission of heat by radium and to give an approximate magnitude for the phenomenon. They stated:

» 1 g of radium emits a quantity of heat of approximately 100 calories (420 joules) per hour.

In other words, a gram of radium emitted enough heat in an hour to raise the temperature of an equal weight of water from freezing point to boiling point. And it was continuous emission, hour after hour for year after year, without any detectable change in the source material.

Curie and Laborde had quantified the capacity of radium to generate heat on a scale which was far beyond that known for any chemical reaction. And this heat was continuously produced at a constant rate, unaffected by temperature, pressure, light, magnetism, electricity or any other agency under human control.

The scientific world was astonished. This phenomenon seemed to defy the laws of thermodynamics and the question was immediately raised: Where was all this energy coming from?

Speculation and insight

In 1903, little was known about the radiation emitted by radioactive substances and even less about the atoms emitting them. The air-ionizing emissions had been grouped into three categories according to their penetrating abililities and deflection by a magnetic field, but the nature of the atom – with its nucleus and orbiting electrons – was a mystery yet to be unveiled.

Illustration from Marie Curie’s 1903 doctoral thesis of the deflection of rays by a magnetic field. Note the variable velocities shown for the β particle, whose charge-mass ratio Becquerel had demonstrated to be identical to that of the electron.

Radioactivity had been discovered by Henri Becquerel as an accidental by-product of his main area of interest, optical luminescence – which is the emission of light of certain wavelengths following the absorption of light of other wavelengths. By association luminescence was seen as a possible explanation of radioactivity, that radioactive substances might be absorbing invisible cosmic energy and re-emitting it as ionizing radiation. But no progress was made on identifying a cosmic source.

Meanwhile, from her detailed analytical work that she began in 1898, Marie Curie had discovered that uranium’s radioactivity was independent of its physical state or its chemical combinations. She reasoned that radioactivity must be an atomic property. This was a crucial insight, which directed thinking towards the idea of conversion of mass into energy as an explanation of the continuous and prodigious production of heat by radium that Pierre Curie and Albert Laborde had observed.

One of the major theories in physics at this time was electromagnetic theory. Maxwell’s equations predicted that mass and energy should be mathematically related to each other, and it was by following this line of thought that Frederick Soddy, previously Ernest Rutherford’s collaborator in Canada, came to the conclusion that radium’s energy was obtained at the expense of its mass.

Writing in the very first Annual Report on the Progress of Chemistry, published by the Royal Society of Chemistry in 1904, Soddy said this:

” … the products of the disintegration of radium must possess a total mass less than that originally possessed by the radium, and a part of the energy evolved must be considered as being derived from the change of a part of the mass into energy.”

– – – –

A different starting point

While Pierre Curie and Albert Laborde were conducting their radium experiment in Rue Cuvier, Paris, Albert Einstein – a naturalized Swiss citizen who had recently completed his technical high school studies in Zurich – was working as a clerk at the Patent Office in Bern. Much of his work related to questions about signal transmission and time synchronization, and this may have influenced his own thoughts, since both of these issues feature prominently in the conceptual thinking that led Einstein to his theory of special relativity submitted in a paper entitled Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper (On the electrodynamics of moving bodies) to Annalen der Physik on Friday 30th June 1905.

On the basis of electromagnetic theory, supplemented by the principle of relativity (in the restricted sense) and the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light contained in Maxwell’s equations, Einstein proves Doppler’s principle by demonstrating the following:

Ist ein Beobachter relativ zu einer unendlich fernen Lichtquelle von der Frequenz ν mit der Geschwindigkeit v derart bewegt, daß die Verbindungslinie “Lichtquelle-Beobachter” mit der auf ein relativ zur Lichtquelle ruhendes Koordinatensystem bezogenen Geschwindigkeit des Beobachters den Winkel φ bildet, so ist die von dem Beobachter wahrgenommene Frequenz ν’ des Lichtes durch die Gleichung gegeben:

If an observer is moving with velocity v relatively to an infinitely distant light source of frequency ν, in such a way that the connecting “source-observer” line makes the angle φ with the velocity of the observer referred to a system of co-ordinates which is at rest relatively to the source of light, the frequency ν’ of the light perceived by the observer is given by:

where Einstein uses V (not c) to represent the velocity of light. He then finds that both the frequency and energy (E) of a light packet (cf. E=hν) vary with the velocity of the observer in accordance with the same law:

It was to this equation Einstein returned in a paper entitled Ist die Trägheit eines Körpers von seinem Energieinhalt abhängig? (Does the inertia of a Body depend on its Energy Content?) submitted to Annalen der Physik on Wednesday 27th September 1905.

– – – –

Mass-energy equivalence

Marie Curie and Albert Einstein, Geneva, Switzerland, 1925

Einstein’s paper of September 1905 – the last of the famous set published in Annalen der Physik in that memorable year – is less than three pages long and constitutes little more than a footnote to the preceding 30-page relativity paper. Yet despite its brevity, it is a difficult and troublesome work over which Einstein brooded for some years.

The paper describes a thought experiment in which a body sends out a light packet in one direction, and simultaneously another light packet of equal energy in the opposite direction. The energy of the body before and after the light emission is determined in relation to two systems of co-ordinates, one at rest relative to the body (where the before-and-after energies are E0 and E1) and one in uniform parallel translation at velocity v (where the before-and-after energies are H0 and H1).

Einstein applies the law of conservation of energy, the principle of relativity and the above-mentioned energy equation to arrive at the following result for the rest frame and the frame in motion relative to the body, the light energy being represented by a capital L:

At this point, things start getting a little tricky. Einstein subtracts the rest frame energies from the moving frame energies for both the before-emission and after-emission cases, and then subtracts these differences:

These differences represent the before-emission kinetic energy (K0) and after-emission kinetic energy (K1) with respect to the moving frame

Since the right hand side is a positive quantity, the kinetic energy of the body diminishes as a result of the emission of light, even though its velocity v remains constant. To elucidate, Einstein performs a binomial expansion on the first term in the braces, although he makes no mention of the procedure; nor does he show the math. So this next bit is my own contribution:

Let (v/V)2 = x

The appropriate form of the binomial expansion is

Setting x = v2/V2 and n = ½

The contents of the braces in the kinetic energy expression thus become

Now back to Einstein. At this point he introduces a new condition into the scheme of things, namely that the velocity v of the system of co-ordinates moving with respect to the body is much less than the velocity of light V. We are in the classical world of v<<V, and so Einstein allows himself to neglect magnitudes of fourth and higher orders in the above expansion. Hence he arrives at

This equation gives the amount of kinetic energy lost by the body after emitting a quantity L of light energy. In the classical world of v<<V the kinetic energy of the body is also given by ½mv2, and since the velocity v is the same before and after the light emission, Einstein is led to identify the loss of kinetic energy in his thought experiment with a loss of mass:

Gibt ein Körper die Energie L in Form von Strahlung ab, so verkleinert sich seine Masse um L/V2. Hierbei ist es offenbar unwesentlich, daß die dem Körper entzogene Energie gerade in Energie der Strahlung übergeht, so daß wir zu der allgemeineren Folgerung geführt werden: Die Masse eines Körpers ist ein Maß für dessen Energie-inhalt.

If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass diminishes by L/V2. The fact that the energy withdrawn from the body becomes energy of radiation evidently makes no difference, so that we are led to the more general conclusion that: The mass of a body is a measure of its energy content.

– – – –

Testing the theory

The pavilion where Curie and Laborde did their famous work

When Einstein wrote Ist die Trägheit eines Körpers von seinem Energieinhalt abhängig? in 1905, he was certainly aware of the phenomenon of continuous heat emission by radium salts as measured by Curie and Laborde, and confirmed by several others in 1903 and 1904. In fact he saw in this a possible means of putting relativity theory to the test:

Es ist nicht ausgeschlossen, daß bie Körpern, deren Energieinhalt in hohem Maße veränderlich ist (z. B. bei den Radiumsaltzen) eine Prüfung der Theorie gelingen wird.

It is not impossible that with bodies whose energy content is variable to a high degree (e.g. with radium salts) the theory may be successfully put to the test.

In hindsight, it was unlikely that Einstein could have made this test work and he soon abandoned the idea. Not only would the mass difference have been extremely small, but also the process of nuclear decay was conceptually different to Einstein’s thought experiment. In Curie and Laborde’s calorimeter, the energy emitted by the body (radium nucleus) was not initially in the form of radiant energy; it was in the form of kinetic energy carried by an ejected alpha particle (helium nucleus) and a recoiling radon nucleus.

But Einstein had a knack of getting ahead of himself and ending up in the right place. The mass-energy equivalence relation he obtained from his imagined light-emitting body turned out to be valid also in relation to the kinetic energy of radioactive decay particles.

To see this in relation to Curie and Laborde’s experiment, consider the nuclear reaction equation

Here Q is the mass difference in atomic mass units (u) required to balance the equation:
Mass of Ra = 226.02536 u
Mass of Rn (222.01753) + He (4.00260) = 226.02013 u
Mass difference = Q = 0.00523 u
The kinetic energy equivalent of 1 u is 931.5 MeV
So Q = 4.87 MeV

The kinetic energy is shared by the ejected alpha particle and recoiling radon nucleus. Since the velocities are non-relativistic, this can be calculated on the basis of the momentum conservation law and the classical expression for kinetic energy. Given the masses of the Rn and He nuclei, their respective velocities must be in the ratio 4.00260 to 222.01753. Writing the kinetic energy expression as ½mv.v and recognizing that ½mv has the same magnitude for both nuclei, the kinetic energies of the Rn and He nuclei must also be in the ratio 4.00260 to 222.01753. The kinetic energy carried by the alpha particle is therefore

4.87 x 222.01753/226.02013 = 4.78 MeV

This result has been confirmed by experiment.

– – – –

Links to original papers mentioned in this post

Sur la chaleur dégagée spontanément par les sels de radium ; par MM. P. Curie et A. Laborde
Comptes Rendus, Tome 136, janvier – juin 1903

http://visualiseur.bnf.fr/CadresFenetre?O=NUMM-3091&I=673&M=tdm

Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper; von A. Einstein
Annalen der Physik 17 (1905) 891-921

https://archive.org/stream/annalenderphysi108unkngoog#page/n1020/mode/2up

Ist die Trägheit eines Körpers von seinem Energieinhalt abhängig? von A. Einstein
Annalen der Physik 18 (1905) 639-641

https://archive.org/stream/annalenderphysi143unkngoog#page/n707/mode/2up

– – – –

Postscript

In Ist die Trägheit eines Körpers von seinem Energieinhalt abhängig? Einstein arrived at a general statement on the dependence of inertia on energy (Δm = ΔE/V2, in today’s language E = mc2) from the consideration of a special case. He was deeply uncertain about this result, and returned to it in two further papers in 1906 and 1907, concluding that a general solution was not possible at that time. He had to wait a few years to discover he was right. I include links to these papers for the sake of completeness.

Das Prinzip von der Erhaltung der Schwerpunktsbewegung und die Trägheit der Energie; von A. Einstein
Annalen der Physik 20 (1906) 627-633
http://myweb.rz.uni-augsburg.de/~eckern/adp/history/einstein-papers/1906_20_627-633.pdf

Über die vom Relativitätsprinzip geforderte Trägheit der Energie; von A. Einstein
Annalen der Physik 23 (1907) 371-384
http://myweb.rz.uni-augsburg.de/~eckern/adp/history/einstein-papers/1907_23_371-384.pdf

– – – –

P Mander June 2017

tp01

A thermodynamic system doesn’t have to be big. Although thermodynamics was originally concerned with very large objects like steam engines for pumping out coal mines, thermodynamic thinking can equally well be applied to very small systems consisting of say, just a few atoms.

Of course, we know that very small systems play by different rules – namely quantum rules – but that’s ok. The rules are known and can be applied. So let’s imagine that our thermodynamic system is an idealized solid consisting of three atoms, each distinguishable from the others by its unique position in space, and each able to perform simple harmonic oscillations independently of the others. At the absolute zero of temperature, the system will have no thermal energy, one microstate and zero entropy, with each atom in its vibrational ground state.

Harmonic motion is quantized, such that if the energy of the ground state is taken as zero and the energy of the first excited state as ε, then 2ε is the energy of the second excited state, 3ε is the energy of the third excited state, and so on. Suppose that from its thermal surroundings our 3-atom system absorbs one unit of energy ε, sufficient to set one of the atoms oscillating. Clearly, one unit of energy can be distributed among three atoms in three different ways – 100, 010, 001 – or in more compact notation [100|3].

Now let’s consider 2ε of absorbed energy. Our system can do this in two ways, either by promoting one oscillator to its second excited state, or two oscillators to their first excited state. Each of these energy distributions can be achieved in three ways, which we can write [200|3], [110|3]. For 3ε of absorbed energy, there are three distributions: [300|3], [210|6], [111|1].

Summarizing the above information

Energy E (in units of ε) Total microstates W Ratio of successive W’s
0 1
1 3 3
2 6 2
3 10 1⅔

 

The summary shows that as E increases, so does W. This is to be expected, since as W increases, the entropy S (= k log W) increases. In other words E and S increase or decrease together; the ratio ∂E/∂S is always positive. Since ∂E/∂S = T, the finding that E and S increase or decrease together is equivalent to saying that the absolute temperature of the system is always positive.

– – – –

Adding an extra particle

It is instructive to compare the distribution of energy among three oscillators (N =3)*

E = 0: [000|1]
E = 1: [100|3]
E = 2: [200|3], [110|3]
E = 3: [300|3], [210|6], [111|1]

with the distribution among four oscillators (N = 4)*

E = 0: [0000|1]
E = 1: [1000|4]
E = 2: [2000|4], [1100|6]
E = 3: [3000|4], [2100|12], [1110|4]

*For any single distribution among N oscillators where n0, n1,n2 … represent the number of oscillators in the ground state, first excited state, second excited state etc, the number of microstates is given by

tp02

It is understood that 0! = 1. Derivation of the formula is given in Appendix I.

For both the 3-oscillator and 4-oscillator systems, the first excited state is never less populated than the second, and the second excited state is never less populated than the third. Population is graded downward and the ratios n1/n0 > n2/n1 > n3/n2 are less than unity.

Example calculations for N = 4, E = 3:

tp03

tp04

tp05

Comparisons can also be made of a single ratio across distributions and between systems. For example the values of n1/n0 for E = 0, 1, 2, 3 are

(N = 4) : 0, ⅓, ½, ⅗
(N = 3) : 0, ½, ⅔, ¾

Since for a macroscopic system

tp06

this implies that for a given value of E the 4-oscillator system is colder than the 3-oscillator system. The same conclusion can be reached by looking at the ratio of successive W’s for the 4-oscillator system sharing 0 to 3 units of thermal energy

Energy E (in units of ε) Total microstates W Ratio of successive W’s
0 1
1 4 4
2 10
3 20 2

 

For the 4-oscillator system the ratios of successive W’s are larger than the corresponding ratios for the 3-oscillator system. The logarithms of these ratios are inversely proportional to the absolute temperature, so the larger the ratio the lower the temperature.

– – – –

Finite differences

The differences between successive W’s for a 4-oscillator system are the values for a 3-oscillator system

W for (N =4) : 1, 4, 10, 20
Differences : 3, 6, 10

Likewise the differences between successive W’s for a 3-oscillator system and a 2-oscillator system

W for (N =3) : 1, 3, 6, 10
Differences : 2, 3, 4

Likewise for the differences between successive W’s for a 2-oscillator system and a 1-oscillator system

W for (N =2) : 1, 2, 3, 4
Differences : 1, 1, 1

This implies that W for the 4-particle system can be expressed as a cubic in n, and that W for the 3-particle system can be expressed as a quadratic in n etc. Evaluation of coefficients leads to the following formula progression

For N = 1

tp07

For N = 2

tp08

For N = 3

tp09

For N = 4

tp10

It appears that in general

tp11

Since n = E/ε and ε = hν, the above equation can be written

tp12

For a system of oscillators this formula describes the functional dependence of W microstates on the size of the particle ensemble (N), its energy (E), the mechanical frequency of its oscillators (ν) and Planck’s constant (h).

– – – –

Appendix I

Formula to be derived

For any single distribution among N oscillators where n0, n1,n2 … represent the number of oscillators in the ground state, first excited state, second excited state etc, the number of microstates is given by

tp02

Derivation

In combinatorial analysis, the above comes into the category of permutations of sets with the possible occurrence of indistinguishable elements.

Consider the distribution of 3 units of energy across 4 oscillators such that one oscillator has two units, another has the remaining one unit, and the other two oscillators are in the ground state: {2100}

If each of the four numbers was distinct, there would be 4! possible ways to arrange them. But the two zeros are indistinguishable, so the number of ways is reduced by a factor of 2! The number of ways to arrange {2100} is therefore 4!/2! = 12.

1 and 2 occur only once in the above set, and the occurrence of 3 is zero. This does not result in a reduction in the number of possible ways to arrange {2100} since 1! = 1 and 0! = 1. Their presence in the denominator will have no effect, but for completeness we can write

4!/2!1!1!0!

to compute the number of microstates for the single distribution E = 3, N = 4, {2100} where n0 = 2, n1 = 1, n2 = 1 and n3 = 0.

In the general case, the formula for the number of microstates for a single energy distribution of E among N oscillators is

tp02

where the terms in the denominator are as defined above.

– – – –

P Mander April 2016