2
$\begingroup$

In order to define temperature in terms of statistics, "Concepts of Thermal Physics" by Blundell states:

Let us assume that the first system can be in any one of $Ω_1(E_1)$ microstates and the second system can be in any one of $Ω_2(E_2)$ microstates. Thus the whole system can be in any one of $Ω_1(E_1)Ω_2(E_2)$ microstates.

as expected from the probabilities.

However, when is considered that when the two systems can exchange energy with each other, it is stated that:

For our problem of two connected systems, the most probable division of energy between the two systems is the one which maximizes $Ω_1(E_1)Ω_2(E_2)$, because this will correspond to the greatest number of possible microstates.

My question is: Given the fact that occurs an exchange of energy between the two systems, I was expected that we will have:

$\Omega_{1+2} \geq \Omega_{1}\Omega_{2}$ as the number of microstates for the whole system

Could anyone explain me what is wrong above in my argument?´

$\endgroup$
2
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ What is your argument exactly? Why does energy exchange imply that the number of states in the joint system is not the product? $\endgroup$ – kaylimekay Jan 21 at 9:22
  • $\begingroup$ @kaylimekay Exactly $\endgroup$ – JoseAf Jan 21 at 9:24
3
$\begingroup$

Your argument is correct. What is not told explicitly here is that before the systems come in contact you can consider $E_1,E_2$ fixed. After you bring them in contact they are no longer fixed but the quantity $E=E_1+E_2$ is fixed. This leaves only $E_1$ as the free parameter (or $E_2$, just pick one). This means that implicitly $$\Omega_{1+2}(E_1)=\Omega_1(E_1)\Omega_2(E_2)=\Omega_1(E_1)\Omega_2(E-E_1).$$ After the systems have reached thermal equilibrium $E_1$ is again fixed because it has reached the unique value that maximizes $\Omega_{1+2}(E_1)$.

I should add that initially $\Omega_{1+2}=\Omega_1\Omega_2$ but after thermalization $\Omega_{1+2}\geq\Omega_1\Omega_2$.

$\endgroup$
2
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ So, it works because one of the systems is a heat bath, right? $\endgroup$ – JoseAf Jan 21 at 9:38
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @JoseAf Not exactly. A heat bath is defined a system that is so much larger than your system of interest that removing heat from the heat bath doesn't change the heat bath. In this example from Blundell system 1 and 2 could be equal in size. $\endgroup$ – AccidentalTaylorExpansion Jan 21 at 9:45

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.