Entropy as a function of temperature: is temperature well defined?How do we define temperature?Relation between entropy and internal energyProving that the Boltzmann entropy is equal to the thermodynamic entropyWhy is Boltzmann entropy equation used for configurational entropy?How to avoid temperature being infinite at entropy maximumEntropy definition, additivity, laws in different ensembleshow to increase entropy without increasing temperature?Is entropy zero at temperature zero for ideal gas?Entropy and temperature of small systemsTemperature from the Gibbs entropy

What happened to Ghost?

How can I fairly adjudicate the effects of height differences on ranged attacks?

Airbnb - host wants to reduce rooms, can we get refund?

Transfer over $10k

Hang 20lb projector screen on Hardieplank

Has any spacecraft ever had the ability to directly communicate with civilian air traffic control?

Is there a QGIS plugin that reclassify raster symbology based on current extent?

An 'if constexpr branch' does not get discarded inside lambda that is inside a template function

How to back up a running Linode server?

What does air vanishing on contact sound like?

Feels like I am getting dragged into office politics

If Earth is tilted, why is Polaris always above the same spot?

Was Hulk present at this funeral?

I lost my Irish passport. Can I travel to Thailand and back from the UK using my US passport?

Stark VS Thanos

How could a planet have most of its water in the atmosphere?

How to reply this mail from potential PhD professor?

Can a cyclic Amine form an Amide?

Why is Arya visibly scared in the library in S8E3?

Change active object through scripting

Conflicting terms and the definition of a «child»

Survey Confirmation - Emphasize the question or the answer?

Is it cheaper to drop cargo than to land it?

What are the spoon bit of a spoon and fork bit of a fork called?



Entropy as a function of temperature: is temperature well defined?


How do we define temperature?Relation between entropy and internal energyProving that the Boltzmann entropy is equal to the thermodynamic entropyWhy is Boltzmann entropy equation used for configurational entropy?How to avoid temperature being infinite at entropy maximumEntropy definition, additivity, laws in different ensembleshow to increase entropy without increasing temperature?Is entropy zero at temperature zero for ideal gas?Entropy and temperature of small systemsTemperature from the Gibbs entropy













2












$begingroup$


Considering volume and particle number constant, the internal energy $U$ is a function of the entropy: $U=U(S)$. The temperature is then defined as $T=dU(S)/dS$. From here, the temperature is a function of the entropy: $T=T(S)$.



One can now define the free energy $F=F(T)$ as



$$F(T) = U-TS = U(S(T)) - TS(T)$$



For this, however, $T(S)$ has to be invertable. My question is, what happens if $U(S)$ is some wavy function such that its derivative is the same at many distinct $S$ values? In other words, what happens if $T^*=T(S^*)$ has multiple solutions for $S^*$? Is it possible not to have a well defined temperature at equilibrium?



My wild guess is that this shouldn't happen in the thermodynamic limit, but can't see this. Also, small, even single particle systems have well defined temperature so is there some constraint on the shape of $U(S)$ I'm missing here?










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    You can prove $U(S)$ is always a convex function, so that puts some limits on what can go wrong here.
    $endgroup$
    – Jahan Claes
    4 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @JahanClaes Could you sketch or refer to a proof that $U(S)$ is always convex?
    $endgroup$
    – Botond
    1 hour ago















2












$begingroup$


Considering volume and particle number constant, the internal energy $U$ is a function of the entropy: $U=U(S)$. The temperature is then defined as $T=dU(S)/dS$. From here, the temperature is a function of the entropy: $T=T(S)$.



One can now define the free energy $F=F(T)$ as



$$F(T) = U-TS = U(S(T)) - TS(T)$$



For this, however, $T(S)$ has to be invertable. My question is, what happens if $U(S)$ is some wavy function such that its derivative is the same at many distinct $S$ values? In other words, what happens if $T^*=T(S^*)$ has multiple solutions for $S^*$? Is it possible not to have a well defined temperature at equilibrium?



My wild guess is that this shouldn't happen in the thermodynamic limit, but can't see this. Also, small, even single particle systems have well defined temperature so is there some constraint on the shape of $U(S)$ I'm missing here?










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    You can prove $U(S)$ is always a convex function, so that puts some limits on what can go wrong here.
    $endgroup$
    – Jahan Claes
    4 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @JahanClaes Could you sketch or refer to a proof that $U(S)$ is always convex?
    $endgroup$
    – Botond
    1 hour ago













2












2








2





$begingroup$


Considering volume and particle number constant, the internal energy $U$ is a function of the entropy: $U=U(S)$. The temperature is then defined as $T=dU(S)/dS$. From here, the temperature is a function of the entropy: $T=T(S)$.



One can now define the free energy $F=F(T)$ as



$$F(T) = U-TS = U(S(T)) - TS(T)$$



For this, however, $T(S)$ has to be invertable. My question is, what happens if $U(S)$ is some wavy function such that its derivative is the same at many distinct $S$ values? In other words, what happens if $T^*=T(S^*)$ has multiple solutions for $S^*$? Is it possible not to have a well defined temperature at equilibrium?



My wild guess is that this shouldn't happen in the thermodynamic limit, but can't see this. Also, small, even single particle systems have well defined temperature so is there some constraint on the shape of $U(S)$ I'm missing here?










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$




Considering volume and particle number constant, the internal energy $U$ is a function of the entropy: $U=U(S)$. The temperature is then defined as $T=dU(S)/dS$. From here, the temperature is a function of the entropy: $T=T(S)$.



One can now define the free energy $F=F(T)$ as



$$F(T) = U-TS = U(S(T)) - TS(T)$$



For this, however, $T(S)$ has to be invertable. My question is, what happens if $U(S)$ is some wavy function such that its derivative is the same at many distinct $S$ values? In other words, what happens if $T^*=T(S^*)$ has multiple solutions for $S^*$? Is it possible not to have a well defined temperature at equilibrium?



My wild guess is that this shouldn't happen in the thermodynamic limit, but can't see this. Also, small, even single particle systems have well defined temperature so is there some constraint on the shape of $U(S)$ I'm missing here?







thermodynamics statistical-mechanics temperature entropy






share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question











share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question










asked 5 hours ago









BotondBotond

1766




1766







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    You can prove $U(S)$ is always a convex function, so that puts some limits on what can go wrong here.
    $endgroup$
    – Jahan Claes
    4 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @JahanClaes Could you sketch or refer to a proof that $U(S)$ is always convex?
    $endgroup$
    – Botond
    1 hour ago












  • 1




    $begingroup$
    You can prove $U(S)$ is always a convex function, so that puts some limits on what can go wrong here.
    $endgroup$
    – Jahan Claes
    4 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @JahanClaes Could you sketch or refer to a proof that $U(S)$ is always convex?
    $endgroup$
    – Botond
    1 hour ago







1




1




$begingroup$
You can prove $U(S)$ is always a convex function, so that puts some limits on what can go wrong here.
$endgroup$
– Jahan Claes
4 hours ago




$begingroup$
You can prove $U(S)$ is always a convex function, so that puts some limits on what can go wrong here.
$endgroup$
– Jahan Claes
4 hours ago












$begingroup$
@JahanClaes Could you sketch or refer to a proof that $U(S)$ is always convex?
$endgroup$
– Botond
1 hour ago




$begingroup$
@JahanClaes Could you sketch or refer to a proof that $U(S)$ is always convex?
$endgroup$
– Botond
1 hour ago










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















4












$begingroup$

Function $T(S)=(partial U/partial S)_V$ does not have to be strictly increasing with $S$. For example, when heat is added to a mix of ice and water at 0 degrees Celsius, entropy increases but temperature stays the same until all ice is melted. So it is not, in general, possible to express entropy as function of $T,V,N$.



Free energy is



$$
F(T,V,N) = U - TS
$$

but neither $U$ nor $S$ can be expressed as functions of $T,V,N$.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    I'm confused. I thought that if you externally impose a fixed $T,V,N$ to the system, that defines your $F(T,V,N)$ free energy unambiguously. You can write a free energy as a function of the molar concentrations, but the equilibrium free energy will be the one that minimizes $F(T,V,N)$. Thus the equilibrium molar concentrations are also functions of $T,V,N$.
    $endgroup$
    – Botond
    4 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    My mistake, the part about molar numbers was wrong. I changed my answer.
    $endgroup$
    – Ján Lalinský
    2 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Thank you. What still bugs me is that if neither $U$ nor $S$ can be expressed as a function of $T,V,N$, how would you possibly know that $U-TS$ will only depend on $T,V,N$ and not on $U$ and/or $S$?
    $endgroup$
    – Botond
    1 hour ago










  • $begingroup$
    It follows from the definition of $F$. We have $dU = TdS - pdV$, so from the differentials we see $U$ is a function of $S,V$. Then since $F=U-TS$, we have $dF=dU - TdS - SdT$ so $dF = -SdT -pdV$ so again from differentials $F$ must be function of $T,V$.
    $endgroup$
    – Ján Lalinský
    1 hour ago



















1












$begingroup$

Your question requires an answer on three different levels:



  1. mathematical;

  2. pure thermodynamics;

  3. statistical mechanics.

1. mathematics



The definition of the Helmholtz free energy you refer to is nothing but the Legendre transform of the fundamental equation $U(S,V,N)$ with respect to its first variable $S$ in term of the conjugate variable $T=left( frac partialUpartialS right)_V,N$. The original Legendre transform would be easily done by requiring $U$ to be a twice differentiable function of $S$ with a positively defined hessian matrix. However, such a request is too strong for real thermodynamic systems. It is well known that a useful extension of the Legendre transform is the so-called Legendre-Fenchel transform (LF) (or convex-conjugate).



In the case of thermodynamics, the definition of LF transform is slightly different from the most common mathematical definition. In the case of the Helmholtz free energy, it would be written as
$$
F(T,V,N) = inf_S( U(S,V,N) - TS )
$$

Such a definition reduces to the usual Legendre transform in the part of the domain of $U(S,V,N)$ where the function is strictly convex (and twice differentiable with respect to $S$). Where the function is convex but not strictly convex (i.e. what mathematicians call an affine function, i.e. a linear function), the LF transform maps the entire affine interval into a single point where left and right derivatives differ.



Since fundamental equations must be convex (o cancave) but not strictly convex (or strictly concave), it turns out that the LF transform is the proper mathematical tool for a change of variable $S leftrightarrow T$.



2. Pure thermodynamics



Affine regions of $U(S,V,N)$ are to be expected, due to the phenomenon of phase coexistence. In such regions, the thermodynamic potential must be a linear function of its extensive variables since it corresponds to an equilibrium condition of an inhomogeneous system made by more coexisting phases. At coexistence, $T(S,V,N)$ is a constant as a function of $S$. But this is physically consistent with the presence of a latent heat at the first order phase transition.



3. Statistical mechanics



Statistial mechanics is deemed to give access to Thermodynamics, by starting with a model for the Hamiltonian of the system. However, such a program in general requires the so-called thermodynamic limit (TL). TL is required for different reasons. Summarizing, these are:



  • only TL can introduce the non-analiticity required to recover phase transitions;

  • only at TL (if it exists) it is possible to recover the extensiveness

  • only at TL (if it exists) it is possible to recover the convexity properties.

Without TL many properties, which are considered typical for thermodynamic systems, would not be valid. On the other hand, working with a finite number of degrees of freedom, although unavoidable from the numerical point of view, in general introduces non-convex (unphysical) regions. Therefore, TL is required, but at TL the $T(S,V,N)$ is not invertible for $S$ in the whole coexistence region. Nevertheless, LF transform can cope without problem with the situation.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Thank you for the detailed answer. Still digesting. Can you please explain what you mean by "fundamental equations must be convex" and why this is true? Also, can you please elaborate on your definition of the free energy as the infimum over S? Does this just cuts the whole domain of $S$ to chunks where $U(S)$ is convex/concave?
    $endgroup$
    – Botond
    1 hour ago










  • $begingroup$
    Convexity/concavity of fundamental equations (thermodynamic potentials in the present case) is a basic consequence of the minimum pincipe for internal energy. You'll find an argument for concavity of entropy in the Callen's textbook. Definition of free energy as inf is just the application of LF definition (according to thermodynamicists) to the case of S <->T change of variables. Finally, $U(S)$ must be convex everywhere in its domain. Concave regions are forbidden in a stable thermodynamic system. This is the short answer. If you need the long answer I could do but not immediately.
    $endgroup$
    – GiorgioP
    1 hour ago











Your Answer








StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "151"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);

else
createEditor();

);

function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);



);













draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f476796%2fentropy-as-a-function-of-temperature-is-temperature-well-defined%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes








2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









4












$begingroup$

Function $T(S)=(partial U/partial S)_V$ does not have to be strictly increasing with $S$. For example, when heat is added to a mix of ice and water at 0 degrees Celsius, entropy increases but temperature stays the same until all ice is melted. So it is not, in general, possible to express entropy as function of $T,V,N$.



Free energy is



$$
F(T,V,N) = U - TS
$$

but neither $U$ nor $S$ can be expressed as functions of $T,V,N$.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    I'm confused. I thought that if you externally impose a fixed $T,V,N$ to the system, that defines your $F(T,V,N)$ free energy unambiguously. You can write a free energy as a function of the molar concentrations, but the equilibrium free energy will be the one that minimizes $F(T,V,N)$. Thus the equilibrium molar concentrations are also functions of $T,V,N$.
    $endgroup$
    – Botond
    4 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    My mistake, the part about molar numbers was wrong. I changed my answer.
    $endgroup$
    – Ján Lalinský
    2 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Thank you. What still bugs me is that if neither $U$ nor $S$ can be expressed as a function of $T,V,N$, how would you possibly know that $U-TS$ will only depend on $T,V,N$ and not on $U$ and/or $S$?
    $endgroup$
    – Botond
    1 hour ago










  • $begingroup$
    It follows from the definition of $F$. We have $dU = TdS - pdV$, so from the differentials we see $U$ is a function of $S,V$. Then since $F=U-TS$, we have $dF=dU - TdS - SdT$ so $dF = -SdT -pdV$ so again from differentials $F$ must be function of $T,V$.
    $endgroup$
    – Ján Lalinský
    1 hour ago
















4












$begingroup$

Function $T(S)=(partial U/partial S)_V$ does not have to be strictly increasing with $S$. For example, when heat is added to a mix of ice and water at 0 degrees Celsius, entropy increases but temperature stays the same until all ice is melted. So it is not, in general, possible to express entropy as function of $T,V,N$.



Free energy is



$$
F(T,V,N) = U - TS
$$

but neither $U$ nor $S$ can be expressed as functions of $T,V,N$.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    I'm confused. I thought that if you externally impose a fixed $T,V,N$ to the system, that defines your $F(T,V,N)$ free energy unambiguously. You can write a free energy as a function of the molar concentrations, but the equilibrium free energy will be the one that minimizes $F(T,V,N)$. Thus the equilibrium molar concentrations are also functions of $T,V,N$.
    $endgroup$
    – Botond
    4 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    My mistake, the part about molar numbers was wrong. I changed my answer.
    $endgroup$
    – Ján Lalinský
    2 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Thank you. What still bugs me is that if neither $U$ nor $S$ can be expressed as a function of $T,V,N$, how would you possibly know that $U-TS$ will only depend on $T,V,N$ and not on $U$ and/or $S$?
    $endgroup$
    – Botond
    1 hour ago










  • $begingroup$
    It follows from the definition of $F$. We have $dU = TdS - pdV$, so from the differentials we see $U$ is a function of $S,V$. Then since $F=U-TS$, we have $dF=dU - TdS - SdT$ so $dF = -SdT -pdV$ so again from differentials $F$ must be function of $T,V$.
    $endgroup$
    – Ján Lalinský
    1 hour ago














4












4








4





$begingroup$

Function $T(S)=(partial U/partial S)_V$ does not have to be strictly increasing with $S$. For example, when heat is added to a mix of ice and water at 0 degrees Celsius, entropy increases but temperature stays the same until all ice is melted. So it is not, in general, possible to express entropy as function of $T,V,N$.



Free energy is



$$
F(T,V,N) = U - TS
$$

but neither $U$ nor $S$ can be expressed as functions of $T,V,N$.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$



Function $T(S)=(partial U/partial S)_V$ does not have to be strictly increasing with $S$. For example, when heat is added to a mix of ice and water at 0 degrees Celsius, entropy increases but temperature stays the same until all ice is melted. So it is not, in general, possible to express entropy as function of $T,V,N$.



Free energy is



$$
F(T,V,N) = U - TS
$$

but neither $U$ nor $S$ can be expressed as functions of $T,V,N$.







share|cite|improve this answer














share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer








edited 2 hours ago

























answered 4 hours ago









Ján LalinskýJán Lalinský

16k1440




16k1440











  • $begingroup$
    I'm confused. I thought that if you externally impose a fixed $T,V,N$ to the system, that defines your $F(T,V,N)$ free energy unambiguously. You can write a free energy as a function of the molar concentrations, but the equilibrium free energy will be the one that minimizes $F(T,V,N)$. Thus the equilibrium molar concentrations are also functions of $T,V,N$.
    $endgroup$
    – Botond
    4 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    My mistake, the part about molar numbers was wrong. I changed my answer.
    $endgroup$
    – Ján Lalinský
    2 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Thank you. What still bugs me is that if neither $U$ nor $S$ can be expressed as a function of $T,V,N$, how would you possibly know that $U-TS$ will only depend on $T,V,N$ and not on $U$ and/or $S$?
    $endgroup$
    – Botond
    1 hour ago










  • $begingroup$
    It follows from the definition of $F$. We have $dU = TdS - pdV$, so from the differentials we see $U$ is a function of $S,V$. Then since $F=U-TS$, we have $dF=dU - TdS - SdT$ so $dF = -SdT -pdV$ so again from differentials $F$ must be function of $T,V$.
    $endgroup$
    – Ján Lalinský
    1 hour ago

















  • $begingroup$
    I'm confused. I thought that if you externally impose a fixed $T,V,N$ to the system, that defines your $F(T,V,N)$ free energy unambiguously. You can write a free energy as a function of the molar concentrations, but the equilibrium free energy will be the one that minimizes $F(T,V,N)$. Thus the equilibrium molar concentrations are also functions of $T,V,N$.
    $endgroup$
    – Botond
    4 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    My mistake, the part about molar numbers was wrong. I changed my answer.
    $endgroup$
    – Ján Lalinský
    2 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Thank you. What still bugs me is that if neither $U$ nor $S$ can be expressed as a function of $T,V,N$, how would you possibly know that $U-TS$ will only depend on $T,V,N$ and not on $U$ and/or $S$?
    $endgroup$
    – Botond
    1 hour ago










  • $begingroup$
    It follows from the definition of $F$. We have $dU = TdS - pdV$, so from the differentials we see $U$ is a function of $S,V$. Then since $F=U-TS$, we have $dF=dU - TdS - SdT$ so $dF = -SdT -pdV$ so again from differentials $F$ must be function of $T,V$.
    $endgroup$
    – Ján Lalinský
    1 hour ago
















$begingroup$
I'm confused. I thought that if you externally impose a fixed $T,V,N$ to the system, that defines your $F(T,V,N)$ free energy unambiguously. You can write a free energy as a function of the molar concentrations, but the equilibrium free energy will be the one that minimizes $F(T,V,N)$. Thus the equilibrium molar concentrations are also functions of $T,V,N$.
$endgroup$
– Botond
4 hours ago




$begingroup$
I'm confused. I thought that if you externally impose a fixed $T,V,N$ to the system, that defines your $F(T,V,N)$ free energy unambiguously. You can write a free energy as a function of the molar concentrations, but the equilibrium free energy will be the one that minimizes $F(T,V,N)$. Thus the equilibrium molar concentrations are also functions of $T,V,N$.
$endgroup$
– Botond
4 hours ago












$begingroup$
My mistake, the part about molar numbers was wrong. I changed my answer.
$endgroup$
– Ján Lalinský
2 hours ago




$begingroup$
My mistake, the part about molar numbers was wrong. I changed my answer.
$endgroup$
– Ján Lalinský
2 hours ago












$begingroup$
Thank you. What still bugs me is that if neither $U$ nor $S$ can be expressed as a function of $T,V,N$, how would you possibly know that $U-TS$ will only depend on $T,V,N$ and not on $U$ and/or $S$?
$endgroup$
– Botond
1 hour ago




$begingroup$
Thank you. What still bugs me is that if neither $U$ nor $S$ can be expressed as a function of $T,V,N$, how would you possibly know that $U-TS$ will only depend on $T,V,N$ and not on $U$ and/or $S$?
$endgroup$
– Botond
1 hour ago












$begingroup$
It follows from the definition of $F$. We have $dU = TdS - pdV$, so from the differentials we see $U$ is a function of $S,V$. Then since $F=U-TS$, we have $dF=dU - TdS - SdT$ so $dF = -SdT -pdV$ so again from differentials $F$ must be function of $T,V$.
$endgroup$
– Ján Lalinský
1 hour ago





$begingroup$
It follows from the definition of $F$. We have $dU = TdS - pdV$, so from the differentials we see $U$ is a function of $S,V$. Then since $F=U-TS$, we have $dF=dU - TdS - SdT$ so $dF = -SdT -pdV$ so again from differentials $F$ must be function of $T,V$.
$endgroup$
– Ján Lalinský
1 hour ago












1












$begingroup$

Your question requires an answer on three different levels:



  1. mathematical;

  2. pure thermodynamics;

  3. statistical mechanics.

1. mathematics



The definition of the Helmholtz free energy you refer to is nothing but the Legendre transform of the fundamental equation $U(S,V,N)$ with respect to its first variable $S$ in term of the conjugate variable $T=left( frac partialUpartialS right)_V,N$. The original Legendre transform would be easily done by requiring $U$ to be a twice differentiable function of $S$ with a positively defined hessian matrix. However, such a request is too strong for real thermodynamic systems. It is well known that a useful extension of the Legendre transform is the so-called Legendre-Fenchel transform (LF) (or convex-conjugate).



In the case of thermodynamics, the definition of LF transform is slightly different from the most common mathematical definition. In the case of the Helmholtz free energy, it would be written as
$$
F(T,V,N) = inf_S( U(S,V,N) - TS )
$$

Such a definition reduces to the usual Legendre transform in the part of the domain of $U(S,V,N)$ where the function is strictly convex (and twice differentiable with respect to $S$). Where the function is convex but not strictly convex (i.e. what mathematicians call an affine function, i.e. a linear function), the LF transform maps the entire affine interval into a single point where left and right derivatives differ.



Since fundamental equations must be convex (o cancave) but not strictly convex (or strictly concave), it turns out that the LF transform is the proper mathematical tool for a change of variable $S leftrightarrow T$.



2. Pure thermodynamics



Affine regions of $U(S,V,N)$ are to be expected, due to the phenomenon of phase coexistence. In such regions, the thermodynamic potential must be a linear function of its extensive variables since it corresponds to an equilibrium condition of an inhomogeneous system made by more coexisting phases. At coexistence, $T(S,V,N)$ is a constant as a function of $S$. But this is physically consistent with the presence of a latent heat at the first order phase transition.



3. Statistical mechanics



Statistial mechanics is deemed to give access to Thermodynamics, by starting with a model for the Hamiltonian of the system. However, such a program in general requires the so-called thermodynamic limit (TL). TL is required for different reasons. Summarizing, these are:



  • only TL can introduce the non-analiticity required to recover phase transitions;

  • only at TL (if it exists) it is possible to recover the extensiveness

  • only at TL (if it exists) it is possible to recover the convexity properties.

Without TL many properties, which are considered typical for thermodynamic systems, would not be valid. On the other hand, working with a finite number of degrees of freedom, although unavoidable from the numerical point of view, in general introduces non-convex (unphysical) regions. Therefore, TL is required, but at TL the $T(S,V,N)$ is not invertible for $S$ in the whole coexistence region. Nevertheless, LF transform can cope without problem with the situation.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Thank you for the detailed answer. Still digesting. Can you please explain what you mean by "fundamental equations must be convex" and why this is true? Also, can you please elaborate on your definition of the free energy as the infimum over S? Does this just cuts the whole domain of $S$ to chunks where $U(S)$ is convex/concave?
    $endgroup$
    – Botond
    1 hour ago










  • $begingroup$
    Convexity/concavity of fundamental equations (thermodynamic potentials in the present case) is a basic consequence of the minimum pincipe for internal energy. You'll find an argument for concavity of entropy in the Callen's textbook. Definition of free energy as inf is just the application of LF definition (according to thermodynamicists) to the case of S <->T change of variables. Finally, $U(S)$ must be convex everywhere in its domain. Concave regions are forbidden in a stable thermodynamic system. This is the short answer. If you need the long answer I could do but not immediately.
    $endgroup$
    – GiorgioP
    1 hour ago















1












$begingroup$

Your question requires an answer on three different levels:



  1. mathematical;

  2. pure thermodynamics;

  3. statistical mechanics.

1. mathematics



The definition of the Helmholtz free energy you refer to is nothing but the Legendre transform of the fundamental equation $U(S,V,N)$ with respect to its first variable $S$ in term of the conjugate variable $T=left( frac partialUpartialS right)_V,N$. The original Legendre transform would be easily done by requiring $U$ to be a twice differentiable function of $S$ with a positively defined hessian matrix. However, such a request is too strong for real thermodynamic systems. It is well known that a useful extension of the Legendre transform is the so-called Legendre-Fenchel transform (LF) (or convex-conjugate).



In the case of thermodynamics, the definition of LF transform is slightly different from the most common mathematical definition. In the case of the Helmholtz free energy, it would be written as
$$
F(T,V,N) = inf_S( U(S,V,N) - TS )
$$

Such a definition reduces to the usual Legendre transform in the part of the domain of $U(S,V,N)$ where the function is strictly convex (and twice differentiable with respect to $S$). Where the function is convex but not strictly convex (i.e. what mathematicians call an affine function, i.e. a linear function), the LF transform maps the entire affine interval into a single point where left and right derivatives differ.



Since fundamental equations must be convex (o cancave) but not strictly convex (or strictly concave), it turns out that the LF transform is the proper mathematical tool for a change of variable $S leftrightarrow T$.



2. Pure thermodynamics



Affine regions of $U(S,V,N)$ are to be expected, due to the phenomenon of phase coexistence. In such regions, the thermodynamic potential must be a linear function of its extensive variables since it corresponds to an equilibrium condition of an inhomogeneous system made by more coexisting phases. At coexistence, $T(S,V,N)$ is a constant as a function of $S$. But this is physically consistent with the presence of a latent heat at the first order phase transition.



3. Statistical mechanics



Statistial mechanics is deemed to give access to Thermodynamics, by starting with a model for the Hamiltonian of the system. However, such a program in general requires the so-called thermodynamic limit (TL). TL is required for different reasons. Summarizing, these are:



  • only TL can introduce the non-analiticity required to recover phase transitions;

  • only at TL (if it exists) it is possible to recover the extensiveness

  • only at TL (if it exists) it is possible to recover the convexity properties.

Without TL many properties, which are considered typical for thermodynamic systems, would not be valid. On the other hand, working with a finite number of degrees of freedom, although unavoidable from the numerical point of view, in general introduces non-convex (unphysical) regions. Therefore, TL is required, but at TL the $T(S,V,N)$ is not invertible for $S$ in the whole coexistence region. Nevertheless, LF transform can cope without problem with the situation.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Thank you for the detailed answer. Still digesting. Can you please explain what you mean by "fundamental equations must be convex" and why this is true? Also, can you please elaborate on your definition of the free energy as the infimum over S? Does this just cuts the whole domain of $S$ to chunks where $U(S)$ is convex/concave?
    $endgroup$
    – Botond
    1 hour ago










  • $begingroup$
    Convexity/concavity of fundamental equations (thermodynamic potentials in the present case) is a basic consequence of the minimum pincipe for internal energy. You'll find an argument for concavity of entropy in the Callen's textbook. Definition of free energy as inf is just the application of LF definition (according to thermodynamicists) to the case of S <->T change of variables. Finally, $U(S)$ must be convex everywhere in its domain. Concave regions are forbidden in a stable thermodynamic system. This is the short answer. If you need the long answer I could do but not immediately.
    $endgroup$
    – GiorgioP
    1 hour ago













1












1








1





$begingroup$

Your question requires an answer on three different levels:



  1. mathematical;

  2. pure thermodynamics;

  3. statistical mechanics.

1. mathematics



The definition of the Helmholtz free energy you refer to is nothing but the Legendre transform of the fundamental equation $U(S,V,N)$ with respect to its first variable $S$ in term of the conjugate variable $T=left( frac partialUpartialS right)_V,N$. The original Legendre transform would be easily done by requiring $U$ to be a twice differentiable function of $S$ with a positively defined hessian matrix. However, such a request is too strong for real thermodynamic systems. It is well known that a useful extension of the Legendre transform is the so-called Legendre-Fenchel transform (LF) (or convex-conjugate).



In the case of thermodynamics, the definition of LF transform is slightly different from the most common mathematical definition. In the case of the Helmholtz free energy, it would be written as
$$
F(T,V,N) = inf_S( U(S,V,N) - TS )
$$

Such a definition reduces to the usual Legendre transform in the part of the domain of $U(S,V,N)$ where the function is strictly convex (and twice differentiable with respect to $S$). Where the function is convex but not strictly convex (i.e. what mathematicians call an affine function, i.e. a linear function), the LF transform maps the entire affine interval into a single point where left and right derivatives differ.



Since fundamental equations must be convex (o cancave) but not strictly convex (or strictly concave), it turns out that the LF transform is the proper mathematical tool for a change of variable $S leftrightarrow T$.



2. Pure thermodynamics



Affine regions of $U(S,V,N)$ are to be expected, due to the phenomenon of phase coexistence. In such regions, the thermodynamic potential must be a linear function of its extensive variables since it corresponds to an equilibrium condition of an inhomogeneous system made by more coexisting phases. At coexistence, $T(S,V,N)$ is a constant as a function of $S$. But this is physically consistent with the presence of a latent heat at the first order phase transition.



3. Statistical mechanics



Statistial mechanics is deemed to give access to Thermodynamics, by starting with a model for the Hamiltonian of the system. However, such a program in general requires the so-called thermodynamic limit (TL). TL is required for different reasons. Summarizing, these are:



  • only TL can introduce the non-analiticity required to recover phase transitions;

  • only at TL (if it exists) it is possible to recover the extensiveness

  • only at TL (if it exists) it is possible to recover the convexity properties.

Without TL many properties, which are considered typical for thermodynamic systems, would not be valid. On the other hand, working with a finite number of degrees of freedom, although unavoidable from the numerical point of view, in general introduces non-convex (unphysical) regions. Therefore, TL is required, but at TL the $T(S,V,N)$ is not invertible for $S$ in the whole coexistence region. Nevertheless, LF transform can cope without problem with the situation.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$



Your question requires an answer on three different levels:



  1. mathematical;

  2. pure thermodynamics;

  3. statistical mechanics.

1. mathematics



The definition of the Helmholtz free energy you refer to is nothing but the Legendre transform of the fundamental equation $U(S,V,N)$ with respect to its first variable $S$ in term of the conjugate variable $T=left( frac partialUpartialS right)_V,N$. The original Legendre transform would be easily done by requiring $U$ to be a twice differentiable function of $S$ with a positively defined hessian matrix. However, such a request is too strong for real thermodynamic systems. It is well known that a useful extension of the Legendre transform is the so-called Legendre-Fenchel transform (LF) (or convex-conjugate).



In the case of thermodynamics, the definition of LF transform is slightly different from the most common mathematical definition. In the case of the Helmholtz free energy, it would be written as
$$
F(T,V,N) = inf_S( U(S,V,N) - TS )
$$

Such a definition reduces to the usual Legendre transform in the part of the domain of $U(S,V,N)$ where the function is strictly convex (and twice differentiable with respect to $S$). Where the function is convex but not strictly convex (i.e. what mathematicians call an affine function, i.e. a linear function), the LF transform maps the entire affine interval into a single point where left and right derivatives differ.



Since fundamental equations must be convex (o cancave) but not strictly convex (or strictly concave), it turns out that the LF transform is the proper mathematical tool for a change of variable $S leftrightarrow T$.



2. Pure thermodynamics



Affine regions of $U(S,V,N)$ are to be expected, due to the phenomenon of phase coexistence. In such regions, the thermodynamic potential must be a linear function of its extensive variables since it corresponds to an equilibrium condition of an inhomogeneous system made by more coexisting phases. At coexistence, $T(S,V,N)$ is a constant as a function of $S$. But this is physically consistent with the presence of a latent heat at the first order phase transition.



3. Statistical mechanics



Statistial mechanics is deemed to give access to Thermodynamics, by starting with a model for the Hamiltonian of the system. However, such a program in general requires the so-called thermodynamic limit (TL). TL is required for different reasons. Summarizing, these are:



  • only TL can introduce the non-analiticity required to recover phase transitions;

  • only at TL (if it exists) it is possible to recover the extensiveness

  • only at TL (if it exists) it is possible to recover the convexity properties.

Without TL many properties, which are considered typical for thermodynamic systems, would not be valid. On the other hand, working with a finite number of degrees of freedom, although unavoidable from the numerical point of view, in general introduces non-convex (unphysical) regions. Therefore, TL is required, but at TL the $T(S,V,N)$ is not invertible for $S$ in the whole coexistence region. Nevertheless, LF transform can cope without problem with the situation.







share|cite|improve this answer












share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer










answered 2 hours ago









GiorgioPGiorgioP

4,9532832




4,9532832











  • $begingroup$
    Thank you for the detailed answer. Still digesting. Can you please explain what you mean by "fundamental equations must be convex" and why this is true? Also, can you please elaborate on your definition of the free energy as the infimum over S? Does this just cuts the whole domain of $S$ to chunks where $U(S)$ is convex/concave?
    $endgroup$
    – Botond
    1 hour ago










  • $begingroup$
    Convexity/concavity of fundamental equations (thermodynamic potentials in the present case) is a basic consequence of the minimum pincipe for internal energy. You'll find an argument for concavity of entropy in the Callen's textbook. Definition of free energy as inf is just the application of LF definition (according to thermodynamicists) to the case of S <->T change of variables. Finally, $U(S)$ must be convex everywhere in its domain. Concave regions are forbidden in a stable thermodynamic system. This is the short answer. If you need the long answer I could do but not immediately.
    $endgroup$
    – GiorgioP
    1 hour ago
















  • $begingroup$
    Thank you for the detailed answer. Still digesting. Can you please explain what you mean by "fundamental equations must be convex" and why this is true? Also, can you please elaborate on your definition of the free energy as the infimum over S? Does this just cuts the whole domain of $S$ to chunks where $U(S)$ is convex/concave?
    $endgroup$
    – Botond
    1 hour ago










  • $begingroup$
    Convexity/concavity of fundamental equations (thermodynamic potentials in the present case) is a basic consequence of the minimum pincipe for internal energy. You'll find an argument for concavity of entropy in the Callen's textbook. Definition of free energy as inf is just the application of LF definition (according to thermodynamicists) to the case of S <->T change of variables. Finally, $U(S)$ must be convex everywhere in its domain. Concave regions are forbidden in a stable thermodynamic system. This is the short answer. If you need the long answer I could do but not immediately.
    $endgroup$
    – GiorgioP
    1 hour ago















$begingroup$
Thank you for the detailed answer. Still digesting. Can you please explain what you mean by "fundamental equations must be convex" and why this is true? Also, can you please elaborate on your definition of the free energy as the infimum over S? Does this just cuts the whole domain of $S$ to chunks where $U(S)$ is convex/concave?
$endgroup$
– Botond
1 hour ago




$begingroup$
Thank you for the detailed answer. Still digesting. Can you please explain what you mean by "fundamental equations must be convex" and why this is true? Also, can you please elaborate on your definition of the free energy as the infimum over S? Does this just cuts the whole domain of $S$ to chunks where $U(S)$ is convex/concave?
$endgroup$
– Botond
1 hour ago












$begingroup$
Convexity/concavity of fundamental equations (thermodynamic potentials in the present case) is a basic consequence of the minimum pincipe for internal energy. You'll find an argument for concavity of entropy in the Callen's textbook. Definition of free energy as inf is just the application of LF definition (according to thermodynamicists) to the case of S <->T change of variables. Finally, $U(S)$ must be convex everywhere in its domain. Concave regions are forbidden in a stable thermodynamic system. This is the short answer. If you need the long answer I could do but not immediately.
$endgroup$
– GiorgioP
1 hour ago




$begingroup$
Convexity/concavity of fundamental equations (thermodynamic potentials in the present case) is a basic consequence of the minimum pincipe for internal energy. You'll find an argument for concavity of entropy in the Callen's textbook. Definition of free energy as inf is just the application of LF definition (according to thermodynamicists) to the case of S <->T change of variables. Finally, $U(S)$ must be convex everywhere in its domain. Concave regions are forbidden in a stable thermodynamic system. This is the short answer. If you need the long answer I could do but not immediately.
$endgroup$
– GiorgioP
1 hour ago

















draft saved

draft discarded
















































Thanks for contributing an answer to Physics Stack Exchange!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid


  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f476796%2fentropy-as-a-function-of-temperature-is-temperature-well-defined%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







Popular posts from this blog

Log på Navigationsmenu

Wonderful Copenhagen (sang) Eksterne henvisninger | NavigationsmenurSide på frankloesser.comWonderful Copenhagen

Detroit Tigers Spis treści Historia | Skład zespołu | Sukcesy | Członkowie Baseball Hall of Fame | Zastrzeżone numery | Przypisy | Menu nawigacyjneEncyclopedia of Detroit - Detroit TigersTigers Stadium, Detroit, MITigers Timeline 1900sDetroit Tigers Team History & EncyclopediaTigers Timeline 1910s1935 World Series1945 World Series1945 World Series1984 World SeriesComerica Park, Detroit, MI2006 World Series2012 World SeriesDetroit Tigers 40-Man RosterDetroit Tigers Coaching StaffTigers Hall of FamersTigers Retired Numberse