- #1
zenterix
- 708
- 84
- Homework Statement
- I've studied the zeroth law in other books and am just reviewing it in a new book.
- Relevant Equations
- This new book shows some math to explain the zeroth law.
I've seen this math also in a lecture once. It seems very vague to me.
Here is the relevant part of the book
##F_1## and ##F_2## are introduced as seen above. There is, as far as I can tell, no previous mention of them.
Why does ##F_1(P_A,V_A,P_B,V_B)=0## signify thermal equilibrium?
##P_A## and ##V_A## determine ##T_A## and the same for the ##B## thermodynamic variables.
Thus, it seems that this equation indicates that given, say, ##P_A## and ##V_A##, ie ##T_A##, then there are specific pairs of ##P_B## and ##V_B## that make the equation true.
The book where this equation appears does not define thermal equilibrium.
In Zemansky and Dittman we have the following definition
This means that systems ##A## and ##B## can exchange energy (I think this means just heat).
Again in Zemansky and Dittman
Suppose we keep ##V_B## constant and vary ##P_B## and ##T_B##. Then we are moving among different isotherms.
In the equation for ##F_1## in the screenshot above, it seems that this type of change in ##B## should not be allowed.
But I cannot see what it is that prevents it from being allowed with just that equation.
Next, the book isolates ##P_B## in the two initial equations and reaches
$$f_1(P_A,V_A,V_B)=f_2(P_C,V_C,V_B)$$
and says this means ##A## and ##C## are in equilibrium. Why?
Here is the relevant part of the book
##F_1## and ##F_2## are introduced as seen above. There is, as far as I can tell, no previous mention of them.
Why does ##F_1(P_A,V_A,P_B,V_B)=0## signify thermal equilibrium?
##P_A## and ##V_A## determine ##T_A## and the same for the ##B## thermodynamic variables.
Thus, it seems that this equation indicates that given, say, ##P_A## and ##V_A##, ie ##T_A##, then there are specific pairs of ##P_B## and ##V_B## that make the equation true.
The book where this equation appears does not define thermal equilibrium.
In Zemansky and Dittman we have the following definition
Thermal Equilibrium: state achieved by two (or more) systems, characterized by restricted values of the coordinates of the systems, after they have been in communication with each other through a diathermic wall.
This means that systems ##A## and ##B## can exchange energy (I think this means just heat).
Again in Zemansky and Dittman
Experiment shows that there exists a whole set of states of a system A, any one of which is in thermal equilibrium with some specific state of system B, and all of which are in equilibrium with each other.
All such states lie on a curve in $xy$-plane called an **isotherm:** locus of all points representing states in which a system is in thermal equilibrium with one state of another system.
The specific state of system B is also on an isotherm, and the isotherm of system A and the isotherm of system B in question are called corresponding isotherms.
Suppose we keep ##V_B## constant and vary ##P_B## and ##T_B##. Then we are moving among different isotherms.
In the equation for ##F_1## in the screenshot above, it seems that this type of change in ##B## should not be allowed.
But I cannot see what it is that prevents it from being allowed with just that equation.
Next, the book isolates ##P_B## in the two initial equations and reaches
$$f_1(P_A,V_A,V_B)=f_2(P_C,V_C,V_B)$$
and says this means ##A## and ##C## are in equilibrium. Why?
Last edited: