Is thermodynamics only applicable to systems in equilibrium?
$begingroup$
So I was going through callen's thermodynamics book and their he says that thermodynamics is only applicable to systems which are in equilibrium and that naturally raised a few questions in my mind
Is thermodynamics really never applicable to systems which are not in equilibrium, if so why should such a restriction exist?
And also it might sound silly but why is the theory called "thermodynamics"- specifically the "dynamics" part?
thermodynamics statistical-mechanics equilibrium non-equilibrium
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
So I was going through callen's thermodynamics book and their he says that thermodynamics is only applicable to systems which are in equilibrium and that naturally raised a few questions in my mind
Is thermodynamics really never applicable to systems which are not in equilibrium, if so why should such a restriction exist?
And also it might sound silly but why is the theory called "thermodynamics"- specifically the "dynamics" part?
thermodynamics statistical-mechanics equilibrium non-equilibrium
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
So I was going through callen's thermodynamics book and their he says that thermodynamics is only applicable to systems which are in equilibrium and that naturally raised a few questions in my mind
Is thermodynamics really never applicable to systems which are not in equilibrium, if so why should such a restriction exist?
And also it might sound silly but why is the theory called "thermodynamics"- specifically the "dynamics" part?
thermodynamics statistical-mechanics equilibrium non-equilibrium
$endgroup$
So I was going through callen's thermodynamics book and their he says that thermodynamics is only applicable to systems which are in equilibrium and that naturally raised a few questions in my mind
Is thermodynamics really never applicable to systems which are not in equilibrium, if so why should such a restriction exist?
And also it might sound silly but why is the theory called "thermodynamics"- specifically the "dynamics" part?
thermodynamics statistical-mechanics equilibrium non-equilibrium
thermodynamics statistical-mechanics equilibrium non-equilibrium
edited 19 mins ago
Qmechanic♦
108k122021255
108k122021255
asked 1 hour ago
LuciferLucifer
1018
1018
add a comment |
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
It entirely depends on what you think "thermodynamics" is.
The traditional idea of thermodynamics dealing with systems whose macrostate can be fully described by e.g. temperature, pressure and volume indeed only applies to systems in equilibrium. Of course, as an approximation it also applies to systems "not far" from equilibrium, for some suitable notion of "not far", explaining its success in describing nevertheless a plethora of phenomena that occur in the real world.
However, non-equilibrium thermodynamics also exists, and is well and alive as a subfield of both classical and quantum physics. Its methods, however, differ strongly from what is commonly referred to as "thermodynamics" in introductory textbooks.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Am I wrong in believing that the heat flow equation is then not a part of thermodynamics cause it describes situation when temperature of a system has not yet reached equilibrium?
$endgroup$
– Lucifer
26 mins ago
1
$begingroup$
@Lucifer I don't think it is useful to say that equation is or is not "part of thermodynamics". Why does it matter what "part" of physics an equation "belongs to"? The heat flow equation is a rather fundamental differential equation whose functional form appears in a lot of different contexts. However, I would argue that the heat flow equation is "classical equilibrium thermodynamics" in the sense that it deals with temperature, and so must assume local equilibrium along the flow in order for temperature to be well-defined.
$endgroup$
– ACuriousMind♦
21 mins ago
$begingroup$
The other problem is I'm entirely new to thermodynamics so I don't really know what "i think thermodynamics is" but rely on books and peoples to let me know what thermodynamics is and different author and different people seem to have different notions about so it's getting a bit confusing. Can you tell me a little about the absolute fundamentals? I believe I can understand the rest of it once someone clearly lays down the fundamentals.
$endgroup$
– Lucifer
21 mins ago
1
$begingroup$
@Lucifer I'm afraid free-form introductions to a topic are not what this site is for, especially not its comments. However, people having slightly different notions of what exactly a sub-field entails is something you'll encounter all over physics and something you'll have to get used to. In the end, the laws of nature that you learn do not care for the categories we humans put them in. If you learn how heat flow works, then you know how heat flow works! It doesn't suddenly become wrong if a few years from now you decide that it isn't "real thermodynamics".
$endgroup$
– ACuriousMind♦
13 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Strictly speaking thermodynamics only describes systems at equilibrium or systems which undergo some change, at the end of which they have time to relax back to an equilibrium state. The signature of a thermodynamic system is the huge reduction of the number of degrees of freedom required to describe the state of the system.
Non equilibrium is a weak characterization and actually one can distinguish different levels of departure from thermodynamic equilibrium.
For example, hydrodynamics corresponds to a case where, due to a macroscopic movement of the fluid, if the flow is not too complex, a three dimensional velocity vector field is required, in addition to a couple of thermodynamic scalar fields which describe the local thermodynamic equilibrium.
The special case of thermodynamic systems brought slightly out of equilibrium is also interesting. In that case it is possible to study the fluxes which try to restore equilibrium and to get information about transport coefficients.
However, one has to take into account that major departures from equilibrium are possible, basically requiring to go to detailed descriptions using a huge number of degrees of freedom.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
When dealing with thermodynamics, you are interested in knowing the values of thermodynamic variables such as temperature, pressure, volume, entropy, etc of the system, and we assume that these quantities have uniform values throughout the system. For non-equilibrium systems, this assumption may not hold. For example, if you heat a liquid in a container, different fluid parcels may have different temperatures.
To answer your question about the nomenclature, thermodynamics evolved when people started studying heat engines and how "heat moved" from one body to another. So heat(thermo) and movement(dynamics).
$endgroup$
add a comment |
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
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f476554%2fis-thermodynamics-only-applicable-to-systems-in-equilibrium%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
It entirely depends on what you think "thermodynamics" is.
The traditional idea of thermodynamics dealing with systems whose macrostate can be fully described by e.g. temperature, pressure and volume indeed only applies to systems in equilibrium. Of course, as an approximation it also applies to systems "not far" from equilibrium, for some suitable notion of "not far", explaining its success in describing nevertheless a plethora of phenomena that occur in the real world.
However, non-equilibrium thermodynamics also exists, and is well and alive as a subfield of both classical and quantum physics. Its methods, however, differ strongly from what is commonly referred to as "thermodynamics" in introductory textbooks.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Am I wrong in believing that the heat flow equation is then not a part of thermodynamics cause it describes situation when temperature of a system has not yet reached equilibrium?
$endgroup$
– Lucifer
26 mins ago
1
$begingroup$
@Lucifer I don't think it is useful to say that equation is or is not "part of thermodynamics". Why does it matter what "part" of physics an equation "belongs to"? The heat flow equation is a rather fundamental differential equation whose functional form appears in a lot of different contexts. However, I would argue that the heat flow equation is "classical equilibrium thermodynamics" in the sense that it deals with temperature, and so must assume local equilibrium along the flow in order for temperature to be well-defined.
$endgroup$
– ACuriousMind♦
21 mins ago
$begingroup$
The other problem is I'm entirely new to thermodynamics so I don't really know what "i think thermodynamics is" but rely on books and peoples to let me know what thermodynamics is and different author and different people seem to have different notions about so it's getting a bit confusing. Can you tell me a little about the absolute fundamentals? I believe I can understand the rest of it once someone clearly lays down the fundamentals.
$endgroup$
– Lucifer
21 mins ago
1
$begingroup$
@Lucifer I'm afraid free-form introductions to a topic are not what this site is for, especially not its comments. However, people having slightly different notions of what exactly a sub-field entails is something you'll encounter all over physics and something you'll have to get used to. In the end, the laws of nature that you learn do not care for the categories we humans put them in. If you learn how heat flow works, then you know how heat flow works! It doesn't suddenly become wrong if a few years from now you decide that it isn't "real thermodynamics".
$endgroup$
– ACuriousMind♦
13 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
It entirely depends on what you think "thermodynamics" is.
The traditional idea of thermodynamics dealing with systems whose macrostate can be fully described by e.g. temperature, pressure and volume indeed only applies to systems in equilibrium. Of course, as an approximation it also applies to systems "not far" from equilibrium, for some suitable notion of "not far", explaining its success in describing nevertheless a plethora of phenomena that occur in the real world.
However, non-equilibrium thermodynamics also exists, and is well and alive as a subfield of both classical and quantum physics. Its methods, however, differ strongly from what is commonly referred to as "thermodynamics" in introductory textbooks.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Am I wrong in believing that the heat flow equation is then not a part of thermodynamics cause it describes situation when temperature of a system has not yet reached equilibrium?
$endgroup$
– Lucifer
26 mins ago
1
$begingroup$
@Lucifer I don't think it is useful to say that equation is or is not "part of thermodynamics". Why does it matter what "part" of physics an equation "belongs to"? The heat flow equation is a rather fundamental differential equation whose functional form appears in a lot of different contexts. However, I would argue that the heat flow equation is "classical equilibrium thermodynamics" in the sense that it deals with temperature, and so must assume local equilibrium along the flow in order for temperature to be well-defined.
$endgroup$
– ACuriousMind♦
21 mins ago
$begingroup$
The other problem is I'm entirely new to thermodynamics so I don't really know what "i think thermodynamics is" but rely on books and peoples to let me know what thermodynamics is and different author and different people seem to have different notions about so it's getting a bit confusing. Can you tell me a little about the absolute fundamentals? I believe I can understand the rest of it once someone clearly lays down the fundamentals.
$endgroup$
– Lucifer
21 mins ago
1
$begingroup$
@Lucifer I'm afraid free-form introductions to a topic are not what this site is for, especially not its comments. However, people having slightly different notions of what exactly a sub-field entails is something you'll encounter all over physics and something you'll have to get used to. In the end, the laws of nature that you learn do not care for the categories we humans put them in. If you learn how heat flow works, then you know how heat flow works! It doesn't suddenly become wrong if a few years from now you decide that it isn't "real thermodynamics".
$endgroup$
– ACuriousMind♦
13 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
It entirely depends on what you think "thermodynamics" is.
The traditional idea of thermodynamics dealing with systems whose macrostate can be fully described by e.g. temperature, pressure and volume indeed only applies to systems in equilibrium. Of course, as an approximation it also applies to systems "not far" from equilibrium, for some suitable notion of "not far", explaining its success in describing nevertheless a plethora of phenomena that occur in the real world.
However, non-equilibrium thermodynamics also exists, and is well and alive as a subfield of both classical and quantum physics. Its methods, however, differ strongly from what is commonly referred to as "thermodynamics" in introductory textbooks.
$endgroup$
It entirely depends on what you think "thermodynamics" is.
The traditional idea of thermodynamics dealing with systems whose macrostate can be fully described by e.g. temperature, pressure and volume indeed only applies to systems in equilibrium. Of course, as an approximation it also applies to systems "not far" from equilibrium, for some suitable notion of "not far", explaining its success in describing nevertheless a plethora of phenomena that occur in the real world.
However, non-equilibrium thermodynamics also exists, and is well and alive as a subfield of both classical and quantum physics. Its methods, however, differ strongly from what is commonly referred to as "thermodynamics" in introductory textbooks.
answered 1 hour ago
ACuriousMind♦ACuriousMind
73.7k18131326
73.7k18131326
$begingroup$
Am I wrong in believing that the heat flow equation is then not a part of thermodynamics cause it describes situation when temperature of a system has not yet reached equilibrium?
$endgroup$
– Lucifer
26 mins ago
1
$begingroup$
@Lucifer I don't think it is useful to say that equation is or is not "part of thermodynamics". Why does it matter what "part" of physics an equation "belongs to"? The heat flow equation is a rather fundamental differential equation whose functional form appears in a lot of different contexts. However, I would argue that the heat flow equation is "classical equilibrium thermodynamics" in the sense that it deals with temperature, and so must assume local equilibrium along the flow in order for temperature to be well-defined.
$endgroup$
– ACuriousMind♦
21 mins ago
$begingroup$
The other problem is I'm entirely new to thermodynamics so I don't really know what "i think thermodynamics is" but rely on books and peoples to let me know what thermodynamics is and different author and different people seem to have different notions about so it's getting a bit confusing. Can you tell me a little about the absolute fundamentals? I believe I can understand the rest of it once someone clearly lays down the fundamentals.
$endgroup$
– Lucifer
21 mins ago
1
$begingroup$
@Lucifer I'm afraid free-form introductions to a topic are not what this site is for, especially not its comments. However, people having slightly different notions of what exactly a sub-field entails is something you'll encounter all over physics and something you'll have to get used to. In the end, the laws of nature that you learn do not care for the categories we humans put them in. If you learn how heat flow works, then you know how heat flow works! It doesn't suddenly become wrong if a few years from now you decide that it isn't "real thermodynamics".
$endgroup$
– ACuriousMind♦
13 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Am I wrong in believing that the heat flow equation is then not a part of thermodynamics cause it describes situation when temperature of a system has not yet reached equilibrium?
$endgroup$
– Lucifer
26 mins ago
1
$begingroup$
@Lucifer I don't think it is useful to say that equation is or is not "part of thermodynamics". Why does it matter what "part" of physics an equation "belongs to"? The heat flow equation is a rather fundamental differential equation whose functional form appears in a lot of different contexts. However, I would argue that the heat flow equation is "classical equilibrium thermodynamics" in the sense that it deals with temperature, and so must assume local equilibrium along the flow in order for temperature to be well-defined.
$endgroup$
– ACuriousMind♦
21 mins ago
$begingroup$
The other problem is I'm entirely new to thermodynamics so I don't really know what "i think thermodynamics is" but rely on books and peoples to let me know what thermodynamics is and different author and different people seem to have different notions about so it's getting a bit confusing. Can you tell me a little about the absolute fundamentals? I believe I can understand the rest of it once someone clearly lays down the fundamentals.
$endgroup$
– Lucifer
21 mins ago
1
$begingroup$
@Lucifer I'm afraid free-form introductions to a topic are not what this site is for, especially not its comments. However, people having slightly different notions of what exactly a sub-field entails is something you'll encounter all over physics and something you'll have to get used to. In the end, the laws of nature that you learn do not care for the categories we humans put them in. If you learn how heat flow works, then you know how heat flow works! It doesn't suddenly become wrong if a few years from now you decide that it isn't "real thermodynamics".
$endgroup$
– ACuriousMind♦
13 mins ago
$begingroup$
Am I wrong in believing that the heat flow equation is then not a part of thermodynamics cause it describes situation when temperature of a system has not yet reached equilibrium?
$endgroup$
– Lucifer
26 mins ago
$begingroup$
Am I wrong in believing that the heat flow equation is then not a part of thermodynamics cause it describes situation when temperature of a system has not yet reached equilibrium?
$endgroup$
– Lucifer
26 mins ago
1
1
$begingroup$
@Lucifer I don't think it is useful to say that equation is or is not "part of thermodynamics". Why does it matter what "part" of physics an equation "belongs to"? The heat flow equation is a rather fundamental differential equation whose functional form appears in a lot of different contexts. However, I would argue that the heat flow equation is "classical equilibrium thermodynamics" in the sense that it deals with temperature, and so must assume local equilibrium along the flow in order for temperature to be well-defined.
$endgroup$
– ACuriousMind♦
21 mins ago
$begingroup$
@Lucifer I don't think it is useful to say that equation is or is not "part of thermodynamics". Why does it matter what "part" of physics an equation "belongs to"? The heat flow equation is a rather fundamental differential equation whose functional form appears in a lot of different contexts. However, I would argue that the heat flow equation is "classical equilibrium thermodynamics" in the sense that it deals with temperature, and so must assume local equilibrium along the flow in order for temperature to be well-defined.
$endgroup$
– ACuriousMind♦
21 mins ago
$begingroup$
The other problem is I'm entirely new to thermodynamics so I don't really know what "i think thermodynamics is" but rely on books and peoples to let me know what thermodynamics is and different author and different people seem to have different notions about so it's getting a bit confusing. Can you tell me a little about the absolute fundamentals? I believe I can understand the rest of it once someone clearly lays down the fundamentals.
$endgroup$
– Lucifer
21 mins ago
$begingroup$
The other problem is I'm entirely new to thermodynamics so I don't really know what "i think thermodynamics is" but rely on books and peoples to let me know what thermodynamics is and different author and different people seem to have different notions about so it's getting a bit confusing. Can you tell me a little about the absolute fundamentals? I believe I can understand the rest of it once someone clearly lays down the fundamentals.
$endgroup$
– Lucifer
21 mins ago
1
1
$begingroup$
@Lucifer I'm afraid free-form introductions to a topic are not what this site is for, especially not its comments. However, people having slightly different notions of what exactly a sub-field entails is something you'll encounter all over physics and something you'll have to get used to. In the end, the laws of nature that you learn do not care for the categories we humans put them in. If you learn how heat flow works, then you know how heat flow works! It doesn't suddenly become wrong if a few years from now you decide that it isn't "real thermodynamics".
$endgroup$
– ACuriousMind♦
13 mins ago
$begingroup$
@Lucifer I'm afraid free-form introductions to a topic are not what this site is for, especially not its comments. However, people having slightly different notions of what exactly a sub-field entails is something you'll encounter all over physics and something you'll have to get used to. In the end, the laws of nature that you learn do not care for the categories we humans put them in. If you learn how heat flow works, then you know how heat flow works! It doesn't suddenly become wrong if a few years from now you decide that it isn't "real thermodynamics".
$endgroup$
– ACuriousMind♦
13 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Strictly speaking thermodynamics only describes systems at equilibrium or systems which undergo some change, at the end of which they have time to relax back to an equilibrium state. The signature of a thermodynamic system is the huge reduction of the number of degrees of freedom required to describe the state of the system.
Non equilibrium is a weak characterization and actually one can distinguish different levels of departure from thermodynamic equilibrium.
For example, hydrodynamics corresponds to a case where, due to a macroscopic movement of the fluid, if the flow is not too complex, a three dimensional velocity vector field is required, in addition to a couple of thermodynamic scalar fields which describe the local thermodynamic equilibrium.
The special case of thermodynamic systems brought slightly out of equilibrium is also interesting. In that case it is possible to study the fluxes which try to restore equilibrium and to get information about transport coefficients.
However, one has to take into account that major departures from equilibrium are possible, basically requiring to go to detailed descriptions using a huge number of degrees of freedom.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Strictly speaking thermodynamics only describes systems at equilibrium or systems which undergo some change, at the end of which they have time to relax back to an equilibrium state. The signature of a thermodynamic system is the huge reduction of the number of degrees of freedom required to describe the state of the system.
Non equilibrium is a weak characterization and actually one can distinguish different levels of departure from thermodynamic equilibrium.
For example, hydrodynamics corresponds to a case where, due to a macroscopic movement of the fluid, if the flow is not too complex, a three dimensional velocity vector field is required, in addition to a couple of thermodynamic scalar fields which describe the local thermodynamic equilibrium.
The special case of thermodynamic systems brought slightly out of equilibrium is also interesting. In that case it is possible to study the fluxes which try to restore equilibrium and to get information about transport coefficients.
However, one has to take into account that major departures from equilibrium are possible, basically requiring to go to detailed descriptions using a huge number of degrees of freedom.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Strictly speaking thermodynamics only describes systems at equilibrium or systems which undergo some change, at the end of which they have time to relax back to an equilibrium state. The signature of a thermodynamic system is the huge reduction of the number of degrees of freedom required to describe the state of the system.
Non equilibrium is a weak characterization and actually one can distinguish different levels of departure from thermodynamic equilibrium.
For example, hydrodynamics corresponds to a case where, due to a macroscopic movement of the fluid, if the flow is not too complex, a three dimensional velocity vector field is required, in addition to a couple of thermodynamic scalar fields which describe the local thermodynamic equilibrium.
The special case of thermodynamic systems brought slightly out of equilibrium is also interesting. In that case it is possible to study the fluxes which try to restore equilibrium and to get information about transport coefficients.
However, one has to take into account that major departures from equilibrium are possible, basically requiring to go to detailed descriptions using a huge number of degrees of freedom.
$endgroup$
Strictly speaking thermodynamics only describes systems at equilibrium or systems which undergo some change, at the end of which they have time to relax back to an equilibrium state. The signature of a thermodynamic system is the huge reduction of the number of degrees of freedom required to describe the state of the system.
Non equilibrium is a weak characterization and actually one can distinguish different levels of departure from thermodynamic equilibrium.
For example, hydrodynamics corresponds to a case where, due to a macroscopic movement of the fluid, if the flow is not too complex, a three dimensional velocity vector field is required, in addition to a couple of thermodynamic scalar fields which describe the local thermodynamic equilibrium.
The special case of thermodynamic systems brought slightly out of equilibrium is also interesting. In that case it is possible to study the fluxes which try to restore equilibrium and to get information about transport coefficients.
However, one has to take into account that major departures from equilibrium are possible, basically requiring to go to detailed descriptions using a huge number of degrees of freedom.
answered 21 mins ago
GiorgioPGiorgioP
4,8742730
4,8742730
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
When dealing with thermodynamics, you are interested in knowing the values of thermodynamic variables such as temperature, pressure, volume, entropy, etc of the system, and we assume that these quantities have uniform values throughout the system. For non-equilibrium systems, this assumption may not hold. For example, if you heat a liquid in a container, different fluid parcels may have different temperatures.
To answer your question about the nomenclature, thermodynamics evolved when people started studying heat engines and how "heat moved" from one body to another. So heat(thermo) and movement(dynamics).
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
When dealing with thermodynamics, you are interested in knowing the values of thermodynamic variables such as temperature, pressure, volume, entropy, etc of the system, and we assume that these quantities have uniform values throughout the system. For non-equilibrium systems, this assumption may not hold. For example, if you heat a liquid in a container, different fluid parcels may have different temperatures.
To answer your question about the nomenclature, thermodynamics evolved when people started studying heat engines and how "heat moved" from one body to another. So heat(thermo) and movement(dynamics).
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
When dealing with thermodynamics, you are interested in knowing the values of thermodynamic variables such as temperature, pressure, volume, entropy, etc of the system, and we assume that these quantities have uniform values throughout the system. For non-equilibrium systems, this assumption may not hold. For example, if you heat a liquid in a container, different fluid parcels may have different temperatures.
To answer your question about the nomenclature, thermodynamics evolved when people started studying heat engines and how "heat moved" from one body to another. So heat(thermo) and movement(dynamics).
$endgroup$
When dealing with thermodynamics, you are interested in knowing the values of thermodynamic variables such as temperature, pressure, volume, entropy, etc of the system, and we assume that these quantities have uniform values throughout the system. For non-equilibrium systems, this assumption may not hold. For example, if you heat a liquid in a container, different fluid parcels may have different temperatures.
To answer your question about the nomenclature, thermodynamics evolved when people started studying heat engines and how "heat moved" from one body to another. So heat(thermo) and movement(dynamics).
answered 52 mins ago
Kishore IyerKishore Iyer
1314
1314
add a comment |
add a comment |
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.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f476554%2fis-thermodynamics-only-applicable-to-systems-in-equilibrium%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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