Is thermodynamics only applicable to systems in equilibrium?Why does maximal entropy imply equilibrium?Entropy maximum postulate and reversibilityStatistical Mechanics deals with the same systems that Thermodynamics does?Extending the ergodic theorem to non-equilibrium systemsWhat is the difference between thermodynamic and empirical temperature?Adiabatic piston: why is Callen's argument flawed?Has the definition of “statistical mechanics” changed from its original meaning?If spontaneous symmetry breaking only occurs in infinite systems, why do we observe similar effects in finite systems?Heat transfer between a common material and a non-thermalizable one?Entropy production, local thermodynamic equilibrium and adiabatic process

function to receive a character input and return date format (with incorrect input)

Why does processed meat contain preservatives, while canned fish needs not?

What is the strongest case that can be made in favour of the UK regaining some control over fishing policy after Brexit?

Will this character get back his Infinity Stone?

What is the relationship between spectral sequences and obstruction theory?

Who and which - What to choose when we are referring to a choice between two or more things or persons

Will a top journal at least read my introduction?

Rivers without rain

Help to reproduce a tcolorbox with a decoration

Why isn't the definition of absolute value applied when squaring a radical containing a variable?

Was there a Viking Exchange as well as a Columbian one?

How to interact with ERC20 interface?

How to back up a running remote server?

How can I place the product on a social media post better?

How to pronounce 'C++' in Spanish

With a Canadian student visa, can I spend a night at Vancouver before continuing to Toronto?

Why is current rating for multicore cable lower than single core with the same cross section?

How to figure out whether the data is sample data or population data apart from the client's information?

How do we know that ממחרת השבת means from the first day of pesach and not the seventh?

Sci-fi novel series with instant travel between planets through gates. A river runs through the gates

Hilbert Space and Banach Space

Who is the Umpire in this picture?

Inner for loop when run in background in bash spawns new bash process

Minimum value of 4 digit number divided by sum of its digits



Is thermodynamics only applicable to systems in equilibrium?


Why does maximal entropy imply equilibrium?Entropy maximum postulate and reversibilityStatistical Mechanics deals with the same systems that Thermodynamics does?Extending the ergodic theorem to non-equilibrium systemsWhat is the difference between thermodynamic and empirical temperature?Adiabatic piston: why is Callen's argument flawed?Has the definition of “statistical mechanics” changed from its original meaning?If spontaneous symmetry breaking only occurs in infinite systems, why do we observe similar effects in finite systems?Heat transfer between a common material and a non-thermalizable one?Entropy production, local thermodynamic equilibrium and adiabatic process













2












$begingroup$


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?










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$
















    2












    $begingroup$


    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?










    share|cite|improve this question











    $endgroup$














      2












      2








      2





      $begingroup$


      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?










      share|cite|improve this question











      $endgroup$




      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






      share|cite|improve this question















      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited 1 hour ago









      Qmechanic

      108k122021255




      108k122021255










      asked 2 hours ago









      LuciferLucifer

      1068




      1068




















          3 Answers
          3






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          6












          $begingroup$

          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.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$












          • $begingroup$
            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
            1 hour 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
            1 hour 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
            1 hour 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
            1 hour ago


















          4












          $begingroup$

          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.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$




















            0












            $begingroup$

            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).






            share|cite|improve this answer









            $endgroup$













              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
              );



              );













              draft saved

              draft discarded


















              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









              6












              $begingroup$

              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.






              share|cite|improve this answer









              $endgroup$












              • $begingroup$
                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
                1 hour 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
                1 hour 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
                1 hour 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
                1 hour ago















              6












              $begingroup$

              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.






              share|cite|improve this answer









              $endgroup$












              • $begingroup$
                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
                1 hour 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
                1 hour 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
                1 hour 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
                1 hour ago













              6












              6








              6





              $begingroup$

              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.






              share|cite|improve this answer









              $endgroup$



              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.







              share|cite|improve this answer












              share|cite|improve this answer



              share|cite|improve this answer










              answered 2 hours ago









              ACuriousMindACuriousMind

              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
                1 hour 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
                1 hour 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
                1 hour 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
                1 hour 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
                1 hour 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
                1 hour 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
                1 hour 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
                1 hour 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
              1 hour 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
              1 hour 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
              1 hour 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
              1 hour 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
              1 hour 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
              1 hour 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
              1 hour 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
              1 hour ago











              4












              $begingroup$

              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.






              share|cite|improve this answer









              $endgroup$

















                4












                $begingroup$

                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.






                share|cite|improve this answer









                $endgroup$















                  4












                  4








                  4





                  $begingroup$

                  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.






                  share|cite|improve this answer









                  $endgroup$



                  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.







                  share|cite|improve this answer












                  share|cite|improve this answer



                  share|cite|improve this answer










                  answered 1 hour ago









                  GiorgioPGiorgioP

                  4,8842730




                  4,8842730





















                      0












                      $begingroup$

                      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).






                      share|cite|improve this answer









                      $endgroup$

















                        0












                        $begingroup$

                        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).






                        share|cite|improve this answer









                        $endgroup$















                          0












                          0








                          0





                          $begingroup$

                          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).






                          share|cite|improve this answer









                          $endgroup$



                          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).







                          share|cite|improve this answer












                          share|cite|improve this answer



                          share|cite|improve this answer










                          answered 1 hour ago









                          Kishore IyerKishore Iyer

                          1314




                          1314



























                              draft saved

                              draft discarded
















































                              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.




                              draft saved


                              draft discarded














                              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





















































                              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







                              Popular posts from this blog

                              Best approach to update all entries in a list that is paginated?Best way to add items to a paginated listChoose Your Country: Best Usability approachUpdate list when a user is viewing the list without annoying themWhen would the best day to update your webpage be?What should happen when I add a Row to a paginated, sorted listShould I adopt infinite scrolling or classical pagination?How to show user that page objects automatically updateWhat is the best location to locate the comments section in a list pageBest way to combine filtering and selecting items in a listWhen one of two inputs must be updated to satisfy a consistency criteria, which should you update (if at all)?

                              Тонконіг бульбистий Зміст Опис | Поширення | Екологія | Господарське значення | Примітки | Див. також | Література | Джерела | Посилання | Навігаційне меню1114601320038-241116202404kew-435458Poa bulbosaЭлектронный каталог сосудистых растений Азиатской России [Електронний каталог судинних рослин Азіатської Росії]Малышев Л. Л. Дикие родичи культурных растений. Poa bulbosa L. - Мятлик луковичный. [Малишев Л. Л. Дикі родичи культурних рослин. Poa bulbosa L. - Тонконіг бульбистий.]Мятлик (POA) Сем. Злаки (Мятликовые) [Тонконіг (POA) Род. Злаки (Тонконогові)]Poa bulbosa Linnaeus, Sp. Pl. 1: 70. 1753. 鳞茎早熟禾 lin jing zao shu he (Description from Flora of China) [Poa bulbosa Linnaeus, Sp. Pl. 1: 70. 1753. 鳞茎早熟禾 lin jing zao shu he (Опис від Флора Китаю)]Poa bulbosa L. – lipnice cibulkatá / lipnica cibulkatáPoa bulbosa в базі даних Poa bulbosa на сайті Poa bulbosa в базі даних «Global Biodiversity Information Facility» (GBIF)Poa bulbosa в базі даних «Euro + Med PlantBase» — інформаційному ресурсі для Євро-середземноморського розмаїття рослинPoa bulbosa L. на сайті «Плантариум»

                              Вунгтау (аеропорт) Загальні відомості | Див. також | Посилання | Навігаційне меню10°22′00″ пн. ш. 107°05′00″ сх. д. / 10.36667° пн. ш. 107.08333° сх. д. / 10.36667; 107.0833310°22′00″ пн. ш. 107°05′00″ сх. д. / 10.36667° пн. ш. 107.08333° сх. д. / 10.36667; 107.083337731608Vinh AirportVinh airport facelift improves serviceвиправивши або дописавши їївиправивши або дописавши їїр