Timeline for The notion of an adiabatic process in thermodynamics -vs- quantum mechanics
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
18 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 30, 2019 at 15:21 | comment | added | lcv | I would say that the different terminology is rather between chemistry (where it means, a process with no heat exchange) and physics (where it's mostly synonym of slow, this is how Enisten, Born and Fock and others meant it). As for which interpretation is more common it depends on your field. In quantum computing it is definitely a synonym for slow. | |
| Jul 13, 2014 at 18:15 | history | edited | joshphysics | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 272 characters in body
|
| Apr 25, 2013 at 5:30 | comment | added | Siva | My encounters with the terminology have been the same as @joshphysics describes. The point of my question was to understand if there's a common underlying theme to the (seemingly) disparate conventions. | |
| Apr 25, 2013 at 1:33 | comment | added | Paul J. Gans | I agree with @joshphysics. In chemistry it is unambiguous that "adiabatic" means "thermally isolated". Thus an explosion, at least in its initial stages, can be and is treated as adiabatic because there is not enough time to exchange much heat with the surroundings. Further, adiabatic processes do NOT have to be at or near equilibrium. Those paths are called "reversible". Adiabatic paths can be reversible but are not mandated to be such. | |
| Apr 24, 2013 at 23:13 | comment | added | dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten | Personally, I wouldn't argue that the "no heat exchange" definition is incorrect or less reasonable, just that some processes are not well handled by equilibrium thermodynamics and it doesn't make sense to assign any significance to that version in a non-equilibrium context. I suspect that we agree except in some matters of semantics. | |
| Apr 24, 2013 at 21:49 | comment | added | joshphysics | I'm not clear on how this fact about classical thermodynamics makes one convention for the term adiabatic more reasonable unless one wants to restrict the term to only be applicable in the domain of classical thermodynamics. I see nothing unreasonable about keeping adiabatic = $Q=0$ and simply adding the qualifier quasi-static when you also want to emphasize that the process being considered is slow in the sense you describe. I feel that making definitive statements about what adiabatic means is problematic given the varying usage of the term. | |
| Apr 24, 2013 at 21:18 | comment | added | dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten | In classical thermodynamics there is generally an assumption that the entire path is at or near equilibrium, which is why an abrupt event like an explosion probably shouldn't be called "adiabatic" in a thermodynamic sense even though it does not exchange heat with the environment. And yes, this makes the application of the theory to IC engines a little philosophically difficult, but it more or less works so people do it anyway. | |
| Apr 24, 2013 at 20:17 | history | edited | joshphysics | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 822 characters in body
|
| Apr 24, 2013 at 20:14 | comment | added | Slaviks | @joshpysics I am happy we agree to disagree! It should be good for the readers to see different perspectives and judge for themselves. | |
| Apr 24, 2013 at 20:12 | comment | added | joshphysics | @Slaviks I respect your opinion and downvote; I just want to make the issue clear for future readers so that they can make decisions on matters of taste for themselves. I also don't think you're being harsh at all; I hope you continue to be authentic in your assessments of respones. | |
| Apr 24, 2013 at 20:11 | history | edited | joshphysics | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 822 characters in body
|
| Apr 24, 2013 at 20:10 | comment | added | Slaviks | We apparently disagree only on matters of taste - I just disapprove, and hence downvote, the convention of identifying adiabatic with thermally isolated (even if the convention is commonly held). Sorry if it is too harsh by the community standards here. | |
| Apr 24, 2013 at 19:49 | comment | added | joshphysics | @Slaviks What exactly are you disagreeing with? My statements pertain only to what I perceive to be a widely held convention about how a term is defined. Are you saying that you think using adiabatic as a synonym for thermally isolated is not a common convention? I'm certain that I can site multiple sources to show that there are a sizable number of physicists who use the term in that way. | |
| Apr 24, 2013 at 19:38 | comment | added | Slaviks | With all due respect, I disagree. Explosion in a thermally isolated box is not adiabatic by any sensible definition. So it is not only the isolation - I explain myself more in a separate answer. | |
| Apr 24, 2013 at 18:37 | history | edited | joshphysics | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 3 characters in body
|
| Apr 24, 2013 at 16:23 | history | edited | joshphysics | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 193 characters in body
|
| Apr 24, 2013 at 16:12 | history | edited | joshphysics | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 5 characters in body
|
| Apr 24, 2013 at 16:07 | history | answered | joshphysics | CC BY-SA 3.0 |