## Three particle thermodynamics

Posted: December 1, 2017 in physics, thermodynamics
Tags: , , , , , , , , , 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.

– – – –

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 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:   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 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 2½ 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 For N = 2 For N = 3 For N = 4 It appears that in general Since n = E/ε and ε = hν, the above equation can be written 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 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 where the terms in the denominator are as defined above.

– – – –

P Mander April 2016 Historical background

If you received formal tuition in physical chemistry at school, then it’s likely that among the first things you learned were the 17th/18th century gas laws of Mariotte and Gay-Lussac (Boyle and Charles in the English-speaking world) and the equation that expresses them: PV = kT.

It may be that the historical aspects of what is now known as the ideal (perfect) gas equation were not covered as part of your science education, in which case you may be surprised to learn that it took 174 years to advance from the pressure-volume law PV = k to the combined gas law PV = kT. The lengthy timescale indicates that putting together closely associated observations wasn’t regarded as a must-do in this particular era of scientific enquiry. The French physicist and mining engineer Émile Clapeyron eventually created the combined gas equation, not for its own sake, but because he needed an analytical expression for the pressure-volume work done in the cycle of reversible heat engine operations we know today as the Carnot cycle. The first appearance in print of the combined gas law, in Mémoire sur la Puissance Motrice de la Chaleur (Memoir on the Motive Power of Heat, 1834) by Émile Clapeyron

Students sometimes get in a muddle about combining the gas laws, so for the sake of completeness I will set out the procedure. Beginning with a quantity of gas at an arbitrary initial pressure P1 and volume V1, we suppose the pressure is changed to P2 while the temperature is maintained at T1. Applying the Mariotte relation (PV)T = k, we write The pressure being kept constant at P2 we now suppose the temperature changed to T2; the volume will then change from Vx to the final volume V2. Applying the Gay-Lussac relation (V/T)P = k, we write Substituting Vx in the original equation: whence – – – –

Differences of opinion

In the mid-19th century, the ideal gas equation – or rather the ideal gas itself – was the cause of no end of trouble among those involved in developing the new science of thermodynamics. The argument went along the lines that since no real gas was ever perfect, was it legitimate to base thermodynamic theory on the use of a perfect gas as the working substance in the Carnot cycle? Joule, Clausius, Rankine, Maxwell and van der Waals said yes it was, while Mach and Thomson said no it wasn’t.

With thermometry on his mind, Thomson actually got quite upset. Here’s a sample outpouring from the Encyclopaedia Britannica:

“… a mere quicksand has been given as a foundation of thermometry, by building from the beginning on an ideal substance called a perfect gas, with none of its properties realized rigorously by any real substance, and with some of them unknown, and utterly unassignable, even by guess.” Joule (inset) and Thomson may have had their differences, but it didn’t stop them from becoming the most productive partnership in the history of thermodynamics

It seems strange that the notion of an ideal gas, as a theoretical convenience at least, caused this violent division into believers and disbelievers, when everyone agreed that the behavior of all real gases approaches a limit as the pressure approaches zero. This is indeed how the universal gas constant R was computed – by extrapolation from pressure-volume measurements made on real gases. There is no discontinuity between the measured and limiting state, as the following diagram demonstrates: Experiments on real gases show that where v is the molar volume and i signifies ice-point. The universal gas constant is defined by the equation so for real gases The behavior of n moles of any gas as the pressure approaches zero may thus be represented by The notion of an ideal gas is founded on this limiting state, and is defined as a gas that obeys this equation at all pressures. The equation of state of an ideal gas is therefore – – – –

Testing Mayer’s assumption

The notion of an ideal gas was not the only thing troubling William Thomson at the start of the 1850s. He also had a problem with real gases. This was because he was simultaneously engaged in a quest for a scale of thermodynamic temperature that was independent of the properties of any particular substance.

What he needed was to find a property of a real gas that would enable him to
a) prove by thermodynamic argument that real gases do not obey the ideal gas law
b) calculate the absolute temperature from a temperature measured on a (real) gas scale

And he found such a property, or at least he thought he had found it, in the thermodynamic function (∂U/∂V)T.

In the final part of his landmark paper, On the Dynamical Theory of Heat, which was read before the Royal Society of Edinburgh on Monday 15 December 1851, Thomson presented an equation which served his purpose. In modern notation it reads: This is a powerful equation indeed, since it enables any equation of state of a PVT system to be tested by relating the mechanical properties of a gas to a thermodynamic function of state which can be experimentally determined.

If the equation of state is that of an ideal gas (PV = nRT), then  This defining property of an ideal gas, that its internal energy is independent of volume in an isothermal process, was an assumption made in the early 1840s by Julius Robert Mayer of Heilbronn, Germany in developing what we now call Mayer’s relation (Cp – CV = PΔV). Thomson was keen to disprove this assumption, and with it the notion of the ideal gas, by demonstrating non-zero values for (∂U/∂V)T.

In 1845 James Joule had tried to verify Mayer’s assumption in the famous experiment involving the expansion of air into an evacuated cylinder, but the results Joule obtained – although appearing to support Mayer’s claim – were deemed unreliable due to experimental design weaknesses. The equipment with which Joule tried to verify Mayer’s assumption, (∂U/∂V)T = 0. The calorimeter at the rear looks like a solid plate construction but is in fact hollow. This can be ascertained by tapping it – which the author of this blogpost has had the rare opportunity to do.

Thomson had meanwhile been working on an alternative approach to testing Mayer’s assumption. By 1852 he had a design for an apparatus and had arranged with Joule to start work in Manchester in May of that year. This was to be the Joule-Thomson experiment, which for the first time demonstrated decisive differences from ideal behavior in the behavior of real gases.

Mayer’s assumption was eventually shown to be incorrect – to the extent of about 3 parts in a thousand. But this was an insignificant finding in the context of Joule and Thomson’s wider endeavors, which would propel experimental research into the modern era and herald the birth of big science.

Curiously, it was not the fact that (∂U/∂V)T = 0 for an ideal gas that enabled the differences in real gas behavior to be shown in the Joule-Thomson experiment. It was the other defining property of an ideal gas, that its enthalpy H is independent of pressure P in an isothermal process. By parallel reasoning If the equation of state is that of an ideal gas (PV = nRT), then  Since the Joule-Thomson coefficient (μJT) is defined and the second term on the right is zero for an ideal gas, μJT must also be zero. Unlike a real gas therefore, an ideal gas cannot exhibit Joule-Thomson cooling or heating.

– – – –

Finding a way to define absolute temperature

But to return to Thomson and his quest for a scale of absolute temperature. The equation he arrived at in his 1851 paper, besides enabling any equation of state of a PVT system to be tested, also makes it possible to give an exact definition of absolute temperature independently of the behavior of any particular substance.

The argument runs as follows. Given the temperature readings, t, of any arbitrary thermometer (mercury thermometer, bolometer, whatever..) the task is to express the absolute temperature T as a function of t. By direct measurement, it may be found how the behavior of some appropriate substance, e.g. a gas, depends on t and either V or P. Introducing t and V as the independent variables in the above equation instead of T and V, we have where (∂U/∂V)t, (∂P/∂t)V and P represent functions of t and V, which can be experimentally determined. Separating the variables so that both terms in T are on the left, the equation can then be integrated: Integrating between the ice point and the steam point This completely determines T as a function of t.

But as we have already seen, there was a catch to this argumentation – namely that (∂U/∂V) could not be experimentally determined under isothermal conditions with sufficient accuracy.

– – – –

The Joule-Thomson coefficient provides the key

Thomson’s means of circumventing this problem was the steady state Joule-Thomson experiment, which measured upstream and downstream temperature and pressure, and enabled the Joule-Thomson coefficient, μJT = (∂T/∂P)H, to be computed.

It should be borne in mind however that when Joule and Thomson began their work in 1852, they were not aware that their cleverly-designed experiment was subject to isenthalpic conditions. It was the Scottish engineer and mathematician William Rankine who first proved in 1854 that the equation of the curve of free expansion in the Joule-Thomson experiment was d(U+PV) = 0.

As for the Joule-Thomson coefficient itself, it was the crowning achievement of a decade of collaboration, appearing in an appendix to Joule and Thomson’s final joint paper published in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society in 1862. They wrote it in the form where the upper symbol in the derivative denotes “thermal effect”, and K denotes thermal capacity at constant pressure of a unit mass of fluid.

The equation is now usually written By the method applied previously, this equation can be expressed in terms of an empirical t-scale and the absolute T-scale: where C’P is the heat capacity of the gas as measured on the empirical t-scale, i.e. C’P = CP(dT/dt). Cancelling (dT/dt) and separating the variables so that both terms in T are on the left, the equation becomes: Integrating between the ice point and the steam point This completely determines T as a function of t, with all the terms under the integral capable of experimental determination to a sufficient level of accuracy.

– – – –

P Mander May 2014