How is pressure an intensive property?
I've seen this question asked before but I can't find an answer to the specific point I'm troubled with. From the kinetic theory of gases, pressure results from molecules colliding with the walls of a container enclosing a gas, imparting a force upon the wall. Now, if we split the container into two halves, I am told that pressure remains the same on either side of the partition assuming the gas has uniform density throughout the container. But If we split the container into two, isn't there effectively half the number of molecules striking the wall on each side so the pressure should also be halved? Shouldnt pressure be dependent on the number of molecules?
fluid-dynamics pressure
add a comment |
I've seen this question asked before but I can't find an answer to the specific point I'm troubled with. From the kinetic theory of gases, pressure results from molecules colliding with the walls of a container enclosing a gas, imparting a force upon the wall. Now, if we split the container into two halves, I am told that pressure remains the same on either side of the partition assuming the gas has uniform density throughout the container. But If we split the container into two, isn't there effectively half the number of molecules striking the wall on each side so the pressure should also be halved? Shouldnt pressure be dependent on the number of molecules?
fluid-dynamics pressure
Pressure is force per area as you know. The force is proportional to the number of molecules striking the wall which is in turn proportional to area. If you double the area you get double the force. If you divide that force by the area you'll get something that doesn't depend on the system scale.
– user3502079
Dec 20 at 0:06
2
Pressure is also energy per unit volume, which I think is easier to think about with ideal gasses. If you cut the volume in half, you get half the (total) energy too because you have half the atoms. The ratio [pressure] remains constant however.
– Jonathan Stott
Dec 20 at 19:54
@JonathanStott I think yours is ultimately the real reason. Beware of course that the pressure is not the energy density (though they have the same dimension) but the proof works the same (see my answer).
– lcv
Dec 21 at 4:33
add a comment |
I've seen this question asked before but I can't find an answer to the specific point I'm troubled with. From the kinetic theory of gases, pressure results from molecules colliding with the walls of a container enclosing a gas, imparting a force upon the wall. Now, if we split the container into two halves, I am told that pressure remains the same on either side of the partition assuming the gas has uniform density throughout the container. But If we split the container into two, isn't there effectively half the number of molecules striking the wall on each side so the pressure should also be halved? Shouldnt pressure be dependent on the number of molecules?
fluid-dynamics pressure
I've seen this question asked before but I can't find an answer to the specific point I'm troubled with. From the kinetic theory of gases, pressure results from molecules colliding with the walls of a container enclosing a gas, imparting a force upon the wall. Now, if we split the container into two halves, I am told that pressure remains the same on either side of the partition assuming the gas has uniform density throughout the container. But If we split the container into two, isn't there effectively half the number of molecules striking the wall on each side so the pressure should also be halved? Shouldnt pressure be dependent on the number of molecules?
fluid-dynamics pressure
fluid-dynamics pressure
edited Dec 19 at 3:21
QuIcKmAtHs
2,5104828
2,5104828
asked Dec 19 at 2:47
user552217
8616
8616
Pressure is force per area as you know. The force is proportional to the number of molecules striking the wall which is in turn proportional to area. If you double the area you get double the force. If you divide that force by the area you'll get something that doesn't depend on the system scale.
– user3502079
Dec 20 at 0:06
2
Pressure is also energy per unit volume, which I think is easier to think about with ideal gasses. If you cut the volume in half, you get half the (total) energy too because you have half the atoms. The ratio [pressure] remains constant however.
– Jonathan Stott
Dec 20 at 19:54
@JonathanStott I think yours is ultimately the real reason. Beware of course that the pressure is not the energy density (though they have the same dimension) but the proof works the same (see my answer).
– lcv
Dec 21 at 4:33
add a comment |
Pressure is force per area as you know. The force is proportional to the number of molecules striking the wall which is in turn proportional to area. If you double the area you get double the force. If you divide that force by the area you'll get something that doesn't depend on the system scale.
– user3502079
Dec 20 at 0:06
2
Pressure is also energy per unit volume, which I think is easier to think about with ideal gasses. If you cut the volume in half, you get half the (total) energy too because you have half the atoms. The ratio [pressure] remains constant however.
– Jonathan Stott
Dec 20 at 19:54
@JonathanStott I think yours is ultimately the real reason. Beware of course that the pressure is not the energy density (though they have the same dimension) but the proof works the same (see my answer).
– lcv
Dec 21 at 4:33
Pressure is force per area as you know. The force is proportional to the number of molecules striking the wall which is in turn proportional to area. If you double the area you get double the force. If you divide that force by the area you'll get something that doesn't depend on the system scale.
– user3502079
Dec 20 at 0:06
Pressure is force per area as you know. The force is proportional to the number of molecules striking the wall which is in turn proportional to area. If you double the area you get double the force. If you divide that force by the area you'll get something that doesn't depend on the system scale.
– user3502079
Dec 20 at 0:06
2
2
Pressure is also energy per unit volume, which I think is easier to think about with ideal gasses. If you cut the volume in half, you get half the (total) energy too because you have half the atoms. The ratio [pressure] remains constant however.
– Jonathan Stott
Dec 20 at 19:54
Pressure is also energy per unit volume, which I think is easier to think about with ideal gasses. If you cut the volume in half, you get half the (total) energy too because you have half the atoms. The ratio [pressure] remains constant however.
– Jonathan Stott
Dec 20 at 19:54
@JonathanStott I think yours is ultimately the real reason. Beware of course that the pressure is not the energy density (though they have the same dimension) but the proof works the same (see my answer).
– lcv
Dec 21 at 4:33
@JonathanStott I think yours is ultimately the real reason. Beware of course that the pressure is not the energy density (though they have the same dimension) but the proof works the same (see my answer).
– lcv
Dec 21 at 4:33
add a comment |
6 Answers
6
active
oldest
votes
If we split the container into two, isn't there effectively half the number of molecules striking the wall on each side so the pressure should also be halved? Shouldnt pressure be dependent on the number of molecules?
You are right that if we only halved the number of particles we would have a smaller pressure. But you have also halved the volume of the container. The fewer number of particles hits the walls more frequently due to the smaller volume. In other words, the number of particles goes down, but the number of collisions per particle goes up. The two effects cancel out, leading to the same pressure as before you put in the partition.
add a comment |
But If we split the container into two, isn't there effectively half the number of molecules striking the wall on each side so the pressure should also be halved? Shouldnt pressure be dependent on the number of molecules?
The pressure is not dependent on the number of molecules alone. You can simply examine the ideal gas law: $PV=nRT$. If the temperature is constant then reducing both $n$ and $V$ by half leaves pressure unchanged.
3
Physical answer vs. mathematical answer. Let's see who wins :p
– Aaron Stevens
Dec 19 at 2:59
3
Usually physical does, but the mathematical one was so simple in this case.
– Dale
Dec 19 at 3:11
4
Isn't this sort of a circular answer? The formula was (assumingly) derived from how this works in nature, so answering "why does it work like this?" with "because of this formula" seems like a circular argument.
– Angew
Dec 19 at 21:48
2
By that logic it would seem that formulas have no place in answering any physics question. I emphatically disagree. Essentially I showed how the property of intensiveness is obtained from the applicable formula. Nothing circular there.
– Dale
Dec 20 at 17:46
@Dale intensiveness of pressure is not a property unique to ideal gases though (or maybe it is?)
– jacob1729
Dec 20 at 19:54
add a comment |
Yet another way to think of it: if we use instead of $V$ and $n$ the molar density $rho_n = frac{n}{V}$, we get
$$P = rho_n RT$$
or at molecular level, the molecular density (also number density) $rho_N = frac{N}{V}$ giving
$$P = rho_N k_B T$$
which shows that the pressure is an intensive property, since the volume ($V$) does not appear. This $rho_n$ is itself an intensive property for the same reason ordinary mass density is an intensive property.
Thinking about this more physically, since pressure is force over area, and the force is proportional to the number of molecules hitting it which in turn is proportional to how many happen to be in proximity, then we can think about it like this: the amount of molecules that each tiny piece of surface area "sees" remains the same in each case despite that we have cut off another half of the box, and thus it feels the same force. Think about a box of (reasonably small) ordinary macroscopic balls - if I insert a (thin) partition halfway in between the balls while displacing as few as possible, does any little bit of the area of the box's surface suddenly have much more or much less crowding next to it than before? The same thing happens here.
add a comment |
As a complimentary answer to Aaron Stevens answer; when we talk about thermodynamics and its macroscopic properties we consider them in the Thermodynamical limit. In other words the system will be in the state that has the highest probability of happening. For a system with a huge amount of particles this state will have a far higher probability than the others.
This means that global quantities such as pressure can be used for the system as a whole as well as for "non-microscopic" subdivisions of the system. Here "non-microscopic" means that the subdivision still contains enough particles to fulfill the statistical limit.
In your question you are trying to relate an extensive quantity (the number of particles in the system) to pressure which is an intensive quantity. You can try this instead:
In the thermodynamic limit we expect the density of the gas (particle density) to be uniform across the whole system. If we divide the system up into a sum of boxes each box should still have the same gas density in it.
Pressure has two components: The force of each particle and the amount of collisions per unit area. The amount of collisions depends on the particle density and not solely on the number of particles in the box. Otherwise you would expect the same number of collisions from a (10,000-particle, 1 $m^3$) box as a (10,000-particle, 10 $m^3$) box.
Particle density is an intensive quantity in contrast to "Number of particles" which is extensive. If you divide the system into many parts you expect the particle density to remain the same in each new box.
As with the other answers; this is readily seen e.g. in the $PV = nRT$ law. Rewrite it as $P = left(frac{n}{V}right)RT$. The expression in the paranthesis is readily seen as the particle density. It carries the "amount of collisions" part of pressure. The $RT$ part carries the expected energy, or the force, of each collision.
As in Aaron's answer. You are not only halving the number of particles $n$; you are also halving the volume $V$, and those two together ends up making the particle density $left(frac{n}{V}right)$ stay the same. Using the particle density as a lens to see the problem through I hope it becomes clear to you.
It ended up being quite a length answer. Hopefully it is not too overbearing. :)
New contributor
add a comment |
Yet another way of looking at it: if the container is in equilibrium, then in aggregate the particles on one side the partition are the same as the ones on the other side. Every side a particle hits the partition on side A, that particle stays on side A, but would have moved to side B if it weren't for the partition. But there's another particle on side B that would have moved to side A. So those particles "cancel out" (again, in the aggregate). The "missing" particles that aren't are on side B because of the partitions are replaced by particles that stay on side B. If the container is equilibrium, then by definition, all the regions of the container contain essentially the same particles, so it doesn't matter whether it exchanges its particles with the neighboring regions (which is what happens without a partition), or it keeps its own particles (which is what happens with a partition). Putting in a partition doesn't affect the macrostate (other than the partition itself).
add a comment |
It may be interesting to give an answer based on statistical mechanics. Consider the situation where the system is a cylinder of length $L$ with a piston of surface $S$. I'm sure you have seen pictures describing this. In this case the pressure on the piston is computed via
$$
P = frac{1}{S} left langle frac{partial H}{partial x} right rangle =
frac{1}{S} frac{partial}{partial x} left langle H right rangle
$$
where $H$ is the system Hamiltonian, $x$ the coordinate of the piston, and the brackets describe the statistical average. $left langle H right rangle$ is the system's energy.
Now imagine cutting the cylinder in two. We can achieve this via the scaling transformation that sends $xmapsto alpha x$ (with $alpha =1/2$, but we'll keep it more general), such that the length of the cylinder becomes $Lmapsto alpha L$.
Under this transformation the volume is sent to $Vmapsto alpha V$ and the energy to
$$
left langle H right rangle mapsto alpha left langle H right rangle (1)
$$
(modulo surface terms) since the energy is extensive. The surface of the piston is clearly constant $Smapsto S$, while $partial / partial x mapsto (1/alpha) partial / partial x$. All in all we have shrunk the volume by a factor $alpha$ but the pressure
$$Pmapsto P$$
stays invariant, in other words is intensive.
Remark 1 This proof is valid also for interacting systems, and not only for the ideal gas in which the interactions are discarded.
Remark 2 The presence of the piston is obviously not necessary. It is there only to allow visualize things or to measure the force. Moreover the proof can be clearly adapted to other geometries. Then one realizes that
$$
S dx = d V
$$
represents the change in the volume. The formula for the pressure then becomes
$$
P = frac{partial E}{partial V}
$$
familiar from thermodynamics ($E = langle Hrangle$). From this latter expression it's even more obvious that the pressure is intensive (sending $V mapsto alpha V$ one has $E mapsto alpha E$).
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
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%2f449201%2fhow-is-pressure-an-intensive-property%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
6 Answers
6
active
oldest
votes
6 Answers
6
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
If we split the container into two, isn't there effectively half the number of molecules striking the wall on each side so the pressure should also be halved? Shouldnt pressure be dependent on the number of molecules?
You are right that if we only halved the number of particles we would have a smaller pressure. But you have also halved the volume of the container. The fewer number of particles hits the walls more frequently due to the smaller volume. In other words, the number of particles goes down, but the number of collisions per particle goes up. The two effects cancel out, leading to the same pressure as before you put in the partition.
add a comment |
If we split the container into two, isn't there effectively half the number of molecules striking the wall on each side so the pressure should also be halved? Shouldnt pressure be dependent on the number of molecules?
You are right that if we only halved the number of particles we would have a smaller pressure. But you have also halved the volume of the container. The fewer number of particles hits the walls more frequently due to the smaller volume. In other words, the number of particles goes down, but the number of collisions per particle goes up. The two effects cancel out, leading to the same pressure as before you put in the partition.
add a comment |
If we split the container into two, isn't there effectively half the number of molecules striking the wall on each side so the pressure should also be halved? Shouldnt pressure be dependent on the number of molecules?
You are right that if we only halved the number of particles we would have a smaller pressure. But you have also halved the volume of the container. The fewer number of particles hits the walls more frequently due to the smaller volume. In other words, the number of particles goes down, but the number of collisions per particle goes up. The two effects cancel out, leading to the same pressure as before you put in the partition.
If we split the container into two, isn't there effectively half the number of molecules striking the wall on each side so the pressure should also be halved? Shouldnt pressure be dependent on the number of molecules?
You are right that if we only halved the number of particles we would have a smaller pressure. But you have also halved the volume of the container. The fewer number of particles hits the walls more frequently due to the smaller volume. In other words, the number of particles goes down, but the number of collisions per particle goes up. The two effects cancel out, leading to the same pressure as before you put in the partition.
answered Dec 19 at 2:56
Aaron Stevens
8,84731640
8,84731640
add a comment |
add a comment |
But If we split the container into two, isn't there effectively half the number of molecules striking the wall on each side so the pressure should also be halved? Shouldnt pressure be dependent on the number of molecules?
The pressure is not dependent on the number of molecules alone. You can simply examine the ideal gas law: $PV=nRT$. If the temperature is constant then reducing both $n$ and $V$ by half leaves pressure unchanged.
3
Physical answer vs. mathematical answer. Let's see who wins :p
– Aaron Stevens
Dec 19 at 2:59
3
Usually physical does, but the mathematical one was so simple in this case.
– Dale
Dec 19 at 3:11
4
Isn't this sort of a circular answer? The formula was (assumingly) derived from how this works in nature, so answering "why does it work like this?" with "because of this formula" seems like a circular argument.
– Angew
Dec 19 at 21:48
2
By that logic it would seem that formulas have no place in answering any physics question. I emphatically disagree. Essentially I showed how the property of intensiveness is obtained from the applicable formula. Nothing circular there.
– Dale
Dec 20 at 17:46
@Dale intensiveness of pressure is not a property unique to ideal gases though (or maybe it is?)
– jacob1729
Dec 20 at 19:54
add a comment |
But If we split the container into two, isn't there effectively half the number of molecules striking the wall on each side so the pressure should also be halved? Shouldnt pressure be dependent on the number of molecules?
The pressure is not dependent on the number of molecules alone. You can simply examine the ideal gas law: $PV=nRT$. If the temperature is constant then reducing both $n$ and $V$ by half leaves pressure unchanged.
3
Physical answer vs. mathematical answer. Let's see who wins :p
– Aaron Stevens
Dec 19 at 2:59
3
Usually physical does, but the mathematical one was so simple in this case.
– Dale
Dec 19 at 3:11
4
Isn't this sort of a circular answer? The formula was (assumingly) derived from how this works in nature, so answering "why does it work like this?" with "because of this formula" seems like a circular argument.
– Angew
Dec 19 at 21:48
2
By that logic it would seem that formulas have no place in answering any physics question. I emphatically disagree. Essentially I showed how the property of intensiveness is obtained from the applicable formula. Nothing circular there.
– Dale
Dec 20 at 17:46
@Dale intensiveness of pressure is not a property unique to ideal gases though (or maybe it is?)
– jacob1729
Dec 20 at 19:54
add a comment |
But If we split the container into two, isn't there effectively half the number of molecules striking the wall on each side so the pressure should also be halved? Shouldnt pressure be dependent on the number of molecules?
The pressure is not dependent on the number of molecules alone. You can simply examine the ideal gas law: $PV=nRT$. If the temperature is constant then reducing both $n$ and $V$ by half leaves pressure unchanged.
But If we split the container into two, isn't there effectively half the number of molecules striking the wall on each side so the pressure should also be halved? Shouldnt pressure be dependent on the number of molecules?
The pressure is not dependent on the number of molecules alone. You can simply examine the ideal gas law: $PV=nRT$. If the temperature is constant then reducing both $n$ and $V$ by half leaves pressure unchanged.
answered Dec 19 at 2:57
Dale
4,8291825
4,8291825
3
Physical answer vs. mathematical answer. Let's see who wins :p
– Aaron Stevens
Dec 19 at 2:59
3
Usually physical does, but the mathematical one was so simple in this case.
– Dale
Dec 19 at 3:11
4
Isn't this sort of a circular answer? The formula was (assumingly) derived from how this works in nature, so answering "why does it work like this?" with "because of this formula" seems like a circular argument.
– Angew
Dec 19 at 21:48
2
By that logic it would seem that formulas have no place in answering any physics question. I emphatically disagree. Essentially I showed how the property of intensiveness is obtained from the applicable formula. Nothing circular there.
– Dale
Dec 20 at 17:46
@Dale intensiveness of pressure is not a property unique to ideal gases though (or maybe it is?)
– jacob1729
Dec 20 at 19:54
add a comment |
3
Physical answer vs. mathematical answer. Let's see who wins :p
– Aaron Stevens
Dec 19 at 2:59
3
Usually physical does, but the mathematical one was so simple in this case.
– Dale
Dec 19 at 3:11
4
Isn't this sort of a circular answer? The formula was (assumingly) derived from how this works in nature, so answering "why does it work like this?" with "because of this formula" seems like a circular argument.
– Angew
Dec 19 at 21:48
2
By that logic it would seem that formulas have no place in answering any physics question. I emphatically disagree. Essentially I showed how the property of intensiveness is obtained from the applicable formula. Nothing circular there.
– Dale
Dec 20 at 17:46
@Dale intensiveness of pressure is not a property unique to ideal gases though (or maybe it is?)
– jacob1729
Dec 20 at 19:54
3
3
Physical answer vs. mathematical answer. Let's see who wins :p
– Aaron Stevens
Dec 19 at 2:59
Physical answer vs. mathematical answer. Let's see who wins :p
– Aaron Stevens
Dec 19 at 2:59
3
3
Usually physical does, but the mathematical one was so simple in this case.
– Dale
Dec 19 at 3:11
Usually physical does, but the mathematical one was so simple in this case.
– Dale
Dec 19 at 3:11
4
4
Isn't this sort of a circular answer? The formula was (assumingly) derived from how this works in nature, so answering "why does it work like this?" with "because of this formula" seems like a circular argument.
– Angew
Dec 19 at 21:48
Isn't this sort of a circular answer? The formula was (assumingly) derived from how this works in nature, so answering "why does it work like this?" with "because of this formula" seems like a circular argument.
– Angew
Dec 19 at 21:48
2
2
By that logic it would seem that formulas have no place in answering any physics question. I emphatically disagree. Essentially I showed how the property of intensiveness is obtained from the applicable formula. Nothing circular there.
– Dale
Dec 20 at 17:46
By that logic it would seem that formulas have no place in answering any physics question. I emphatically disagree. Essentially I showed how the property of intensiveness is obtained from the applicable formula. Nothing circular there.
– Dale
Dec 20 at 17:46
@Dale intensiveness of pressure is not a property unique to ideal gases though (or maybe it is?)
– jacob1729
Dec 20 at 19:54
@Dale intensiveness of pressure is not a property unique to ideal gases though (or maybe it is?)
– jacob1729
Dec 20 at 19:54
add a comment |
Yet another way to think of it: if we use instead of $V$ and $n$ the molar density $rho_n = frac{n}{V}$, we get
$$P = rho_n RT$$
or at molecular level, the molecular density (also number density) $rho_N = frac{N}{V}$ giving
$$P = rho_N k_B T$$
which shows that the pressure is an intensive property, since the volume ($V$) does not appear. This $rho_n$ is itself an intensive property for the same reason ordinary mass density is an intensive property.
Thinking about this more physically, since pressure is force over area, and the force is proportional to the number of molecules hitting it which in turn is proportional to how many happen to be in proximity, then we can think about it like this: the amount of molecules that each tiny piece of surface area "sees" remains the same in each case despite that we have cut off another half of the box, and thus it feels the same force. Think about a box of (reasonably small) ordinary macroscopic balls - if I insert a (thin) partition halfway in between the balls while displacing as few as possible, does any little bit of the area of the box's surface suddenly have much more or much less crowding next to it than before? The same thing happens here.
add a comment |
Yet another way to think of it: if we use instead of $V$ and $n$ the molar density $rho_n = frac{n}{V}$, we get
$$P = rho_n RT$$
or at molecular level, the molecular density (also number density) $rho_N = frac{N}{V}$ giving
$$P = rho_N k_B T$$
which shows that the pressure is an intensive property, since the volume ($V$) does not appear. This $rho_n$ is itself an intensive property for the same reason ordinary mass density is an intensive property.
Thinking about this more physically, since pressure is force over area, and the force is proportional to the number of molecules hitting it which in turn is proportional to how many happen to be in proximity, then we can think about it like this: the amount of molecules that each tiny piece of surface area "sees" remains the same in each case despite that we have cut off another half of the box, and thus it feels the same force. Think about a box of (reasonably small) ordinary macroscopic balls - if I insert a (thin) partition halfway in between the balls while displacing as few as possible, does any little bit of the area of the box's surface suddenly have much more or much less crowding next to it than before? The same thing happens here.
add a comment |
Yet another way to think of it: if we use instead of $V$ and $n$ the molar density $rho_n = frac{n}{V}$, we get
$$P = rho_n RT$$
or at molecular level, the molecular density (also number density) $rho_N = frac{N}{V}$ giving
$$P = rho_N k_B T$$
which shows that the pressure is an intensive property, since the volume ($V$) does not appear. This $rho_n$ is itself an intensive property for the same reason ordinary mass density is an intensive property.
Thinking about this more physically, since pressure is force over area, and the force is proportional to the number of molecules hitting it which in turn is proportional to how many happen to be in proximity, then we can think about it like this: the amount of molecules that each tiny piece of surface area "sees" remains the same in each case despite that we have cut off another half of the box, and thus it feels the same force. Think about a box of (reasonably small) ordinary macroscopic balls - if I insert a (thin) partition halfway in between the balls while displacing as few as possible, does any little bit of the area of the box's surface suddenly have much more or much less crowding next to it than before? The same thing happens here.
Yet another way to think of it: if we use instead of $V$ and $n$ the molar density $rho_n = frac{n}{V}$, we get
$$P = rho_n RT$$
or at molecular level, the molecular density (also number density) $rho_N = frac{N}{V}$ giving
$$P = rho_N k_B T$$
which shows that the pressure is an intensive property, since the volume ($V$) does not appear. This $rho_n$ is itself an intensive property for the same reason ordinary mass density is an intensive property.
Thinking about this more physically, since pressure is force over area, and the force is proportional to the number of molecules hitting it which in turn is proportional to how many happen to be in proximity, then we can think about it like this: the amount of molecules that each tiny piece of surface area "sees" remains the same in each case despite that we have cut off another half of the box, and thus it feels the same force. Think about a box of (reasonably small) ordinary macroscopic balls - if I insert a (thin) partition halfway in between the balls while displacing as few as possible, does any little bit of the area of the box's surface suddenly have much more or much less crowding next to it than before? The same thing happens here.
answered Dec 19 at 5:36
The_Sympathizer
3,739923
3,739923
add a comment |
add a comment |
As a complimentary answer to Aaron Stevens answer; when we talk about thermodynamics and its macroscopic properties we consider them in the Thermodynamical limit. In other words the system will be in the state that has the highest probability of happening. For a system with a huge amount of particles this state will have a far higher probability than the others.
This means that global quantities such as pressure can be used for the system as a whole as well as for "non-microscopic" subdivisions of the system. Here "non-microscopic" means that the subdivision still contains enough particles to fulfill the statistical limit.
In your question you are trying to relate an extensive quantity (the number of particles in the system) to pressure which is an intensive quantity. You can try this instead:
In the thermodynamic limit we expect the density of the gas (particle density) to be uniform across the whole system. If we divide the system up into a sum of boxes each box should still have the same gas density in it.
Pressure has two components: The force of each particle and the amount of collisions per unit area. The amount of collisions depends on the particle density and not solely on the number of particles in the box. Otherwise you would expect the same number of collisions from a (10,000-particle, 1 $m^3$) box as a (10,000-particle, 10 $m^3$) box.
Particle density is an intensive quantity in contrast to "Number of particles" which is extensive. If you divide the system into many parts you expect the particle density to remain the same in each new box.
As with the other answers; this is readily seen e.g. in the $PV = nRT$ law. Rewrite it as $P = left(frac{n}{V}right)RT$. The expression in the paranthesis is readily seen as the particle density. It carries the "amount of collisions" part of pressure. The $RT$ part carries the expected energy, or the force, of each collision.
As in Aaron's answer. You are not only halving the number of particles $n$; you are also halving the volume $V$, and those two together ends up making the particle density $left(frac{n}{V}right)$ stay the same. Using the particle density as a lens to see the problem through I hope it becomes clear to you.
It ended up being quite a length answer. Hopefully it is not too overbearing. :)
New contributor
add a comment |
As a complimentary answer to Aaron Stevens answer; when we talk about thermodynamics and its macroscopic properties we consider them in the Thermodynamical limit. In other words the system will be in the state that has the highest probability of happening. For a system with a huge amount of particles this state will have a far higher probability than the others.
This means that global quantities such as pressure can be used for the system as a whole as well as for "non-microscopic" subdivisions of the system. Here "non-microscopic" means that the subdivision still contains enough particles to fulfill the statistical limit.
In your question you are trying to relate an extensive quantity (the number of particles in the system) to pressure which is an intensive quantity. You can try this instead:
In the thermodynamic limit we expect the density of the gas (particle density) to be uniform across the whole system. If we divide the system up into a sum of boxes each box should still have the same gas density in it.
Pressure has two components: The force of each particle and the amount of collisions per unit area. The amount of collisions depends on the particle density and not solely on the number of particles in the box. Otherwise you would expect the same number of collisions from a (10,000-particle, 1 $m^3$) box as a (10,000-particle, 10 $m^3$) box.
Particle density is an intensive quantity in contrast to "Number of particles" which is extensive. If you divide the system into many parts you expect the particle density to remain the same in each new box.
As with the other answers; this is readily seen e.g. in the $PV = nRT$ law. Rewrite it as $P = left(frac{n}{V}right)RT$. The expression in the paranthesis is readily seen as the particle density. It carries the "amount of collisions" part of pressure. The $RT$ part carries the expected energy, or the force, of each collision.
As in Aaron's answer. You are not only halving the number of particles $n$; you are also halving the volume $V$, and those two together ends up making the particle density $left(frac{n}{V}right)$ stay the same. Using the particle density as a lens to see the problem through I hope it becomes clear to you.
It ended up being quite a length answer. Hopefully it is not too overbearing. :)
New contributor
add a comment |
As a complimentary answer to Aaron Stevens answer; when we talk about thermodynamics and its macroscopic properties we consider them in the Thermodynamical limit. In other words the system will be in the state that has the highest probability of happening. For a system with a huge amount of particles this state will have a far higher probability than the others.
This means that global quantities such as pressure can be used for the system as a whole as well as for "non-microscopic" subdivisions of the system. Here "non-microscopic" means that the subdivision still contains enough particles to fulfill the statistical limit.
In your question you are trying to relate an extensive quantity (the number of particles in the system) to pressure which is an intensive quantity. You can try this instead:
In the thermodynamic limit we expect the density of the gas (particle density) to be uniform across the whole system. If we divide the system up into a sum of boxes each box should still have the same gas density in it.
Pressure has two components: The force of each particle and the amount of collisions per unit area. The amount of collisions depends on the particle density and not solely on the number of particles in the box. Otherwise you would expect the same number of collisions from a (10,000-particle, 1 $m^3$) box as a (10,000-particle, 10 $m^3$) box.
Particle density is an intensive quantity in contrast to "Number of particles" which is extensive. If you divide the system into many parts you expect the particle density to remain the same in each new box.
As with the other answers; this is readily seen e.g. in the $PV = nRT$ law. Rewrite it as $P = left(frac{n}{V}right)RT$. The expression in the paranthesis is readily seen as the particle density. It carries the "amount of collisions" part of pressure. The $RT$ part carries the expected energy, or the force, of each collision.
As in Aaron's answer. You are not only halving the number of particles $n$; you are also halving the volume $V$, and those two together ends up making the particle density $left(frac{n}{V}right)$ stay the same. Using the particle density as a lens to see the problem through I hope it becomes clear to you.
It ended up being quite a length answer. Hopefully it is not too overbearing. :)
New contributor
As a complimentary answer to Aaron Stevens answer; when we talk about thermodynamics and its macroscopic properties we consider them in the Thermodynamical limit. In other words the system will be in the state that has the highest probability of happening. For a system with a huge amount of particles this state will have a far higher probability than the others.
This means that global quantities such as pressure can be used for the system as a whole as well as for "non-microscopic" subdivisions of the system. Here "non-microscopic" means that the subdivision still contains enough particles to fulfill the statistical limit.
In your question you are trying to relate an extensive quantity (the number of particles in the system) to pressure which is an intensive quantity. You can try this instead:
In the thermodynamic limit we expect the density of the gas (particle density) to be uniform across the whole system. If we divide the system up into a sum of boxes each box should still have the same gas density in it.
Pressure has two components: The force of each particle and the amount of collisions per unit area. The amount of collisions depends on the particle density and not solely on the number of particles in the box. Otherwise you would expect the same number of collisions from a (10,000-particle, 1 $m^3$) box as a (10,000-particle, 10 $m^3$) box.
Particle density is an intensive quantity in contrast to "Number of particles" which is extensive. If you divide the system into many parts you expect the particle density to remain the same in each new box.
As with the other answers; this is readily seen e.g. in the $PV = nRT$ law. Rewrite it as $P = left(frac{n}{V}right)RT$. The expression in the paranthesis is readily seen as the particle density. It carries the "amount of collisions" part of pressure. The $RT$ part carries the expected energy, or the force, of each collision.
As in Aaron's answer. You are not only halving the number of particles $n$; you are also halving the volume $V$, and those two together ends up making the particle density $left(frac{n}{V}right)$ stay the same. Using the particle density as a lens to see the problem through I hope it becomes clear to you.
It ended up being quite a length answer. Hopefully it is not too overbearing. :)
New contributor
New contributor
answered Dec 20 at 12:55
Dan
11
11
New contributor
New contributor
add a comment |
add a comment |
Yet another way of looking at it: if the container is in equilibrium, then in aggregate the particles on one side the partition are the same as the ones on the other side. Every side a particle hits the partition on side A, that particle stays on side A, but would have moved to side B if it weren't for the partition. But there's another particle on side B that would have moved to side A. So those particles "cancel out" (again, in the aggregate). The "missing" particles that aren't are on side B because of the partitions are replaced by particles that stay on side B. If the container is equilibrium, then by definition, all the regions of the container contain essentially the same particles, so it doesn't matter whether it exchanges its particles with the neighboring regions (which is what happens without a partition), or it keeps its own particles (which is what happens with a partition). Putting in a partition doesn't affect the macrostate (other than the partition itself).
add a comment |
Yet another way of looking at it: if the container is in equilibrium, then in aggregate the particles on one side the partition are the same as the ones on the other side. Every side a particle hits the partition on side A, that particle stays on side A, but would have moved to side B if it weren't for the partition. But there's another particle on side B that would have moved to side A. So those particles "cancel out" (again, in the aggregate). The "missing" particles that aren't are on side B because of the partitions are replaced by particles that stay on side B. If the container is equilibrium, then by definition, all the regions of the container contain essentially the same particles, so it doesn't matter whether it exchanges its particles with the neighboring regions (which is what happens without a partition), or it keeps its own particles (which is what happens with a partition). Putting in a partition doesn't affect the macrostate (other than the partition itself).
add a comment |
Yet another way of looking at it: if the container is in equilibrium, then in aggregate the particles on one side the partition are the same as the ones on the other side. Every side a particle hits the partition on side A, that particle stays on side A, but would have moved to side B if it weren't for the partition. But there's another particle on side B that would have moved to side A. So those particles "cancel out" (again, in the aggregate). The "missing" particles that aren't are on side B because of the partitions are replaced by particles that stay on side B. If the container is equilibrium, then by definition, all the regions of the container contain essentially the same particles, so it doesn't matter whether it exchanges its particles with the neighboring regions (which is what happens without a partition), or it keeps its own particles (which is what happens with a partition). Putting in a partition doesn't affect the macrostate (other than the partition itself).
Yet another way of looking at it: if the container is in equilibrium, then in aggregate the particles on one side the partition are the same as the ones on the other side. Every side a particle hits the partition on side A, that particle stays on side A, but would have moved to side B if it weren't for the partition. But there's another particle on side B that would have moved to side A. So those particles "cancel out" (again, in the aggregate). The "missing" particles that aren't are on side B because of the partitions are replaced by particles that stay on side B. If the container is equilibrium, then by definition, all the regions of the container contain essentially the same particles, so it doesn't matter whether it exchanges its particles with the neighboring regions (which is what happens without a partition), or it keeps its own particles (which is what happens with a partition). Putting in a partition doesn't affect the macrostate (other than the partition itself).
answered Dec 20 at 19:29
Acccumulation
1,778210
1,778210
add a comment |
add a comment |
It may be interesting to give an answer based on statistical mechanics. Consider the situation where the system is a cylinder of length $L$ with a piston of surface $S$. I'm sure you have seen pictures describing this. In this case the pressure on the piston is computed via
$$
P = frac{1}{S} left langle frac{partial H}{partial x} right rangle =
frac{1}{S} frac{partial}{partial x} left langle H right rangle
$$
where $H$ is the system Hamiltonian, $x$ the coordinate of the piston, and the brackets describe the statistical average. $left langle H right rangle$ is the system's energy.
Now imagine cutting the cylinder in two. We can achieve this via the scaling transformation that sends $xmapsto alpha x$ (with $alpha =1/2$, but we'll keep it more general), such that the length of the cylinder becomes $Lmapsto alpha L$.
Under this transformation the volume is sent to $Vmapsto alpha V$ and the energy to
$$
left langle H right rangle mapsto alpha left langle H right rangle (1)
$$
(modulo surface terms) since the energy is extensive. The surface of the piston is clearly constant $Smapsto S$, while $partial / partial x mapsto (1/alpha) partial / partial x$. All in all we have shrunk the volume by a factor $alpha$ but the pressure
$$Pmapsto P$$
stays invariant, in other words is intensive.
Remark 1 This proof is valid also for interacting systems, and not only for the ideal gas in which the interactions are discarded.
Remark 2 The presence of the piston is obviously not necessary. It is there only to allow visualize things or to measure the force. Moreover the proof can be clearly adapted to other geometries. Then one realizes that
$$
S dx = d V
$$
represents the change in the volume. The formula for the pressure then becomes
$$
P = frac{partial E}{partial V}
$$
familiar from thermodynamics ($E = langle Hrangle$). From this latter expression it's even more obvious that the pressure is intensive (sending $V mapsto alpha V$ one has $E mapsto alpha E$).
add a comment |
It may be interesting to give an answer based on statistical mechanics. Consider the situation where the system is a cylinder of length $L$ with a piston of surface $S$. I'm sure you have seen pictures describing this. In this case the pressure on the piston is computed via
$$
P = frac{1}{S} left langle frac{partial H}{partial x} right rangle =
frac{1}{S} frac{partial}{partial x} left langle H right rangle
$$
where $H$ is the system Hamiltonian, $x$ the coordinate of the piston, and the brackets describe the statistical average. $left langle H right rangle$ is the system's energy.
Now imagine cutting the cylinder in two. We can achieve this via the scaling transformation that sends $xmapsto alpha x$ (with $alpha =1/2$, but we'll keep it more general), such that the length of the cylinder becomes $Lmapsto alpha L$.
Under this transformation the volume is sent to $Vmapsto alpha V$ and the energy to
$$
left langle H right rangle mapsto alpha left langle H right rangle (1)
$$
(modulo surface terms) since the energy is extensive. The surface of the piston is clearly constant $Smapsto S$, while $partial / partial x mapsto (1/alpha) partial / partial x$. All in all we have shrunk the volume by a factor $alpha$ but the pressure
$$Pmapsto P$$
stays invariant, in other words is intensive.
Remark 1 This proof is valid also for interacting systems, and not only for the ideal gas in which the interactions are discarded.
Remark 2 The presence of the piston is obviously not necessary. It is there only to allow visualize things or to measure the force. Moreover the proof can be clearly adapted to other geometries. Then one realizes that
$$
S dx = d V
$$
represents the change in the volume. The formula for the pressure then becomes
$$
P = frac{partial E}{partial V}
$$
familiar from thermodynamics ($E = langle Hrangle$). From this latter expression it's even more obvious that the pressure is intensive (sending $V mapsto alpha V$ one has $E mapsto alpha E$).
add a comment |
It may be interesting to give an answer based on statistical mechanics. Consider the situation where the system is a cylinder of length $L$ with a piston of surface $S$. I'm sure you have seen pictures describing this. In this case the pressure on the piston is computed via
$$
P = frac{1}{S} left langle frac{partial H}{partial x} right rangle =
frac{1}{S} frac{partial}{partial x} left langle H right rangle
$$
where $H$ is the system Hamiltonian, $x$ the coordinate of the piston, and the brackets describe the statistical average. $left langle H right rangle$ is the system's energy.
Now imagine cutting the cylinder in two. We can achieve this via the scaling transformation that sends $xmapsto alpha x$ (with $alpha =1/2$, but we'll keep it more general), such that the length of the cylinder becomes $Lmapsto alpha L$.
Under this transformation the volume is sent to $Vmapsto alpha V$ and the energy to
$$
left langle H right rangle mapsto alpha left langle H right rangle (1)
$$
(modulo surface terms) since the energy is extensive. The surface of the piston is clearly constant $Smapsto S$, while $partial / partial x mapsto (1/alpha) partial / partial x$. All in all we have shrunk the volume by a factor $alpha$ but the pressure
$$Pmapsto P$$
stays invariant, in other words is intensive.
Remark 1 This proof is valid also for interacting systems, and not only for the ideal gas in which the interactions are discarded.
Remark 2 The presence of the piston is obviously not necessary. It is there only to allow visualize things or to measure the force. Moreover the proof can be clearly adapted to other geometries. Then one realizes that
$$
S dx = d V
$$
represents the change in the volume. The formula for the pressure then becomes
$$
P = frac{partial E}{partial V}
$$
familiar from thermodynamics ($E = langle Hrangle$). From this latter expression it's even more obvious that the pressure is intensive (sending $V mapsto alpha V$ one has $E mapsto alpha E$).
It may be interesting to give an answer based on statistical mechanics. Consider the situation where the system is a cylinder of length $L$ with a piston of surface $S$. I'm sure you have seen pictures describing this. In this case the pressure on the piston is computed via
$$
P = frac{1}{S} left langle frac{partial H}{partial x} right rangle =
frac{1}{S} frac{partial}{partial x} left langle H right rangle
$$
where $H$ is the system Hamiltonian, $x$ the coordinate of the piston, and the brackets describe the statistical average. $left langle H right rangle$ is the system's energy.
Now imagine cutting the cylinder in two. We can achieve this via the scaling transformation that sends $xmapsto alpha x$ (with $alpha =1/2$, but we'll keep it more general), such that the length of the cylinder becomes $Lmapsto alpha L$.
Under this transformation the volume is sent to $Vmapsto alpha V$ and the energy to
$$
left langle H right rangle mapsto alpha left langle H right rangle (1)
$$
(modulo surface terms) since the energy is extensive. The surface of the piston is clearly constant $Smapsto S$, while $partial / partial x mapsto (1/alpha) partial / partial x$. All in all we have shrunk the volume by a factor $alpha$ but the pressure
$$Pmapsto P$$
stays invariant, in other words is intensive.
Remark 1 This proof is valid also for interacting systems, and not only for the ideal gas in which the interactions are discarded.
Remark 2 The presence of the piston is obviously not necessary. It is there only to allow visualize things or to measure the force. Moreover the proof can be clearly adapted to other geometries. Then one realizes that
$$
S dx = d V
$$
represents the change in the volume. The formula for the pressure then becomes
$$
P = frac{partial E}{partial V}
$$
familiar from thermodynamics ($E = langle Hrangle$). From this latter expression it's even more obvious that the pressure is intensive (sending $V mapsto alpha V$ one has $E mapsto alpha E$).
edited Dec 21 at 4:36
answered Dec 21 at 4:30
lcv
32315
32315
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.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- 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.
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%2f449201%2fhow-is-pressure-an-intensive-property%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
Pressure is force per area as you know. The force is proportional to the number of molecules striking the wall which is in turn proportional to area. If you double the area you get double the force. If you divide that force by the area you'll get something that doesn't depend on the system scale.
– user3502079
Dec 20 at 0:06
2
Pressure is also energy per unit volume, which I think is easier to think about with ideal gasses. If you cut the volume in half, you get half the (total) energy too because you have half the atoms. The ratio [pressure] remains constant however.
– Jonathan Stott
Dec 20 at 19:54
@JonathanStott I think yours is ultimately the real reason. Beware of course that the pressure is not the energy density (though they have the same dimension) but the proof works the same (see my answer).
– lcv
Dec 21 at 4:33