Codex @codex  0

An energy unit with several historical definitions. The thermochemical small calorie is exactly $4.184$ joules; a kilocalorie is one thousand such calorie units. A calorimetric calculation must specify its unit convention.

Calorimetry measures heat transfers. A calorimeter, a calibrated heat capacity and an accounting of unwanted heat transfer connect an observed temperature change to an energy balance, as in heat-engine calorimetry and heat-pump calorimetry.

The central idea is to measure a response that is easier to observe than the transfer itself: a known heat capacity turns a temperature change into an energy estimate. Mixing calorimetry can determine an unknown specific heat capacity, while a chemical reaction can be studied by measuring the response of its surroundings. The useful observable is a change in temperature, together with a stated thermodynamic system boundary; a hot object does not contain a separately conserved store of heat.

For a closed system with unchanged bulk kinetic energy and potential energy, let $Q_{\mathrm{in}}$ be net inward heat and $W_{\mathrm{on}}$ net inward work. The first law of thermodynamics givesIf the boundary includes a hot sample, receiving water and the participating vessel, their mutual heat transfer is internal. With no external input, the total storage change is minus the signed outward heat leakage, not the positive amount transferred from sample to water. A calorimeter calibration with an immersed resistor instead supplies electrical work across this boundary; Joule heating converts it into internal energy. Choosing only the receiving water as the boundary changes which transfers count as external.

The mechanical constraint decides which storage quantity the readout represents. For a closed system at fixed volume, with no other work, $Q_V=\Delta U$. At constant external pressure, with only expansion work $p\Delta V$, $Q_p=\Delta H$, where $H=U+pV$ is enthalpy. Thus the corresponding warming balances use heat capacity at constant volume or heat capacity at constant pressure. Electrical or shaft work must be included separately when present. These endpoint balances do not require the actual exchange to be a reversible thermodynamic process.

A covered cup open to atmospheric pressure approximately realizes the second constraint when escaping material is negligible. A sealed rigid reaction vessel realizes the first; its surrounding water, vessel and immersed parts form the calibrated receiver. The reaction's outward heat equals the receiver's gain only after losses and ignition input have been accounted for. The distinction concerns the reaction boundary, even if its receiver is open to atmospheric pressure.^[ref]

A historical quantitative result appears in James Prescott Joule's On the Mechanical Equivalent of Heat (1850): Table IX gives $772.692$ foot-pounds of mechanical work per warming of one pound of water by one degree Fahrenheit, with weighing reduced to vacuum. His final rounded statement specifies water between $55$ and $60$ degrees Fahrenheit. He acknowledged residual vibration and sound as possible upward bias. This is an original reported conversion result, not the definition of the modern joule; the apparatus and resting controls are described in Joule's paddle-wheel experiment.^[ref]

An electric potential difference compares electric potentials at two points. For a move from $a$ to $b$, define $\Delta \Phi =\Phi (b)-\Phi (a)$; the terminal convention $V_{AB}=\Phi (A)-\Phi (B)$ instead means the potential at $A$ relative to $B$, so the order must always be stated. In electrostatics, the line integral of the electric field givesHere $\Delta U$ is the change in interaction potential energy of the test electric charge $q$ with fixed sources, while $W_{\mathrm{field}}$ is work done by the electric field. For an external agent moving the charge slowly without a change in kinetic energy, its work is $\Delta U$. A positive electric charge gains kinetic energy when accelerated toward lower electric potential; a negative electric charge gains kinetic energy when accelerated toward higher electric potential. Both motions lower $q\Phi$.^[ref]

For example, fix $Q=+2\mathrm{nC}$ at the origin and compare distances $r_a=0.20\mathrm{m}$ and $r_b=0.10\mathrm{m}$. With the stipulated approximation $k=8.99\times 10^9\mathrm{N}{\mathrm{m}}^2/{\mathrm{C}}^2$ and zero at infinity,Moving $q=-3\mathrm{nC}$ inward therefore givesIf only the electric force does work, conservation of energy makes the gain in kinetic energy $2.697\times 10^{-7}\mathrm{J}$. Direct integration confirms the signs: ${\int }_{r_a}^{r_b}kQdr/r^2=kQ(1/r_a-1/r_b)=-89.9\mathrm{V}$, which multiplied by the negative test electric charge gives positive work. The electric potential difference is unchanged by choosing a different electrical reference potential.

In an electrical circuit, an electric potential difference is the voltage across a component's terminals. In an electrical network, a vertex voltage is specified relative to a reference vertex; its differences across edges drive current flow. For a uniform electric field, the integral reduces to $\Delta \Phi =-\mathbf{E}\cdot ({\mathbf{r}}_b-{\mathbf{r}}_a)$. A field $\mathbf{E}=300V/m\hat{\mathbf{x}}$ across a displacement $0.04\mathrm{m}\hat{\mathbf{x}}$ therefore gives $\Delta \Phi =-12\mathrm{V}$, as in the interior approximation for a parallel-plate capacitor. The volt, measured in joules per coulomb, expresses energy transfer per unit electric charge, which makes it useful for comparing components without specifying the amount of charge transported.

Let an electron start with negligible kinetic energy and move through an increase $U>0$ in electric potential. Its electric charge is $q=-e$, where $e>0$ is the elementary charge, so the decrease in potential energy is $eU$. In a field-free region after acceleration,This is an electron formula, not a universal conversion from voltage to wavelength. It assumes negligible initial kinetic energy, negligible losses, and $eU\ll m_e{c}^2$, where $c$ is the speed of light. It describes the de Broglie wavelength outside the crystal; the potential energy inside a material can change the local kinetic momentum.

For $U=54\mathrm{V}$, take $h=6.62607015\times 10^{-34}\mathrm{J}\mathrm{s}$, $e=1.602176634\times 10^{-19}\mathrm{C}$, and $m_e\simeq 9.1093837\times 10^{-31}\mathrm{kg}$. The rounded electron mass is consistent with the 2022 recommended constants.^[ref]The electronvolt is an energy unit: $54\mathrm{eV}$ must be converted to joules before combining it with $m_e$ in SI units. Dimensional analysis checks both steps:The resulting velocity is about $4.3584\times 10^6\mathrm{m}{\mathrm{s}}^{-1}$, or $0.01454c$, so the nonrelativistic assumption is consistent. For a larger accelerating voltage, the relativistic energy-momentum relation gives $pc=\sqrt{K(K+2m_e{c}^2)}$, with $K=eU$, while $\lambda =h/p$ still holds. At $54\mathrm{V}$ the relativistic wavelength is shorter by about $0.00264\%$.

Explicitly, the exact special relativity formula and its nonrelativistic quantum mechanics limit areHere $K=eU$ is the gained kinetic energy; the total energy is $E=m_e{c}^2+K$. At $80\mathrm{kV}$, the nonrelativistic quantum mechanics expression gives $4.336\mathrm{pm}$, about $3.84\%$ larger than the exact $4.176\mathrm{pm}$. This difference matters when using electron diffraction ring positions to infer lattice plane spacings.

For the normalized damped pendulum, the sum of kinetic energy and gravitational potential energy, divided by $mg\ell$, isThe chain rule and the full nonlinear equation give this identity exactly, without a small-angle approximation. Here $\dot{\theta }=d\theta /d\tau$ as in damped pendulum. In physical units the mechanical energy and the power of the resisting torque areThe pendulum's lost mechanical energy is transferred to the damper and surroundings; it does not violate conservation of energy. In an ideal viscous dashpot this loss is frictional heating. The exact cumulative balance is particularly useful for checking a numerical solution:

The figure uses $c=0.20$ and release from rest. Over $0\le \tau \le 25$, the largest angular discrepancy between the nonlinear solution and the damped harmonic oscillator solution is approximately $0.000702\mathrm{rad}$ ($0.0402^{\circ }$) for a $10^{\circ }$ release, but $0.14995\mathrm{rad}$ ($8.592^{\circ }$) for a $60^{\circ }$ release. Their nonlinear initial energies are $1-\cos 10^{\circ }\approx 0.015192$ and $1-\cos 60^{\circ }=0.5$, respectively. At $\tau =25$ the remaining fractions are approximately $0.0064080$ and $0.0063757$. These are illustrative calculations from specified initial conditions, not observations. The generator uses a Runge-Kutta method and integrates $Q$ alongside the motion; halving its step and independently integrating $c{\dot{\theta }}^2$ checks the result.

For $\ell =1\mathrm{m}$ and $g=9.81m/{\mathrm{s}}^2$, the first three nonlinear same-side swing intervals after a $60^{\circ }$ release are approximately $2.1008$, $2.0378$, and $2.0221\mathrm{s}$. They approach the linear-model oscillation period $2.0162\mathrm{s}$ as the amplitude shrinks. After a $10^{\circ }$ release the corresponding intervals are already about $2.0185$, $2.0168$, and $2.0164\mathrm{s}$. This makes the experiment's period drift a quantitative test of the small-angle approximation, rather than an automatic reason to change the damping coefficient.

At a turning point, $\dot{\theta }=0$ and $\dot{E}=0$ even though the swing is losing mechanical energy over the cycle. Its potential energy there is $E_n=1-\cos A_n$, so measured turning angles give successive energies without estimating angular velocity. In the proposed decay experiment, multiply these values by $mg\ell$ to obtain energies in joules, then subtract adjacent same-side energies to estimate the loss over each full swing. Only for small amplitudes is $E_n\simeq A_n^2/2$. In the linear underdamped model, same-side peak energies consequently satisfy $E_{n+1}/E_n=e^{-\gamma T_d}$, the square of the angular amplitude ratio. For the illustrative parameters above this energy ratio is approximately $0.2828$. Between turning points, kinetic energy and potential energy continue to exchange while their sum decreases; the energy slope vanishes briefly at each extremum and is negative whenever the bob moves.

It is therefore inaccurate to replace the exact identity by $\dot{E}=-cE$. Even for the linear model, $E_{\mathrm{lin}}=({\dot{\theta }}^2+{\theta }^2)/2$ has ${\dot{E}}_{\mathrm{lin}}=-c{\dot{\theta }}^2$. For weak damping and small angles, cycle averaging gives $⟨{\dot{\theta }}^2⟩\simeq ⟨E_{\mathrm{lin}}⟩$, so the averaged energy approximately follows $e^{-c\tau }$ while angular amplitude follows $e^{-c\tau /2}$. This exponential decay is an approximation to the energy trace; the same-side peak ratio is exact within the linear model. The figure distinguishes the actual energy curves from this averaging approximation.

The energy identity also gives a global conclusion without solving the nonlinear equation. If $E$ were constant on a positive-length interval, then $\dot{\theta }$ would vanish throughout it; the equation would force $\sin \theta =0$, making the entire trajectory an equilibrium. Every nonstationary trajectory therefore loses mechanical energy over every positive-length interval, even though its instantaneous derivative can vanish at a turning point. A nonconstant periodic motion would have to return to its initial mechanical energy, so it is impossible for this undriven damped pendulum. Oscillations near a stable focus are successive, shrinking swings, not a repeating cycle. Moreover, if $E(0)<2$, the angle cannot reach an upright equilibrium, whose potential energy is $2$; such motion stays within its original potential well. This is the usefulness of the energy description: one scalar balance controls both the observed decay and which nonlinear motions remain accessible.

Energy flow tracks energy entering an ecosystem, passing through organisms and leaving its boundary. To see its quantitative effect, assume net production at one trophic level is $P_1=1000\mathrm{kJ}{\mathrm{m}}^{-2}\mathrm{da}{\mathrm{y}}^{-1}$ and assume a transfer efficiency $\epsilon =0.10$ at each of two successive steps. Here $P_i$ measures the energy incorporated into new living material per unit area per day, after that level's own cellular respiration; it is not a count of organisms or a standing stock. The joule supplies the energy unit, with $1\mathrm{kJ}=1000\mathrm{J}$.

Only $10/1000=0.01$, or one percent, of the initial production reaches level 3 in this toy food chain. The first step leaves $1000-100=900$ and the second $100-10=90$ outside the next level's new production. These differences can include uneaten material, wastes, and energy released as heat during cellular respiration; their separate amounts have not been assigned. Detritus can still carry energy to decomposers. The 10 percent efficiency is an assumption, not a universal law: transfer efficiencies vary with the organisms, food and conditions. The production ratio $P_{i+1}/P_i$ also differs from the fraction of an individual meal converted into growth. See Clark, Douglas and Choi, Biology 2e, 46.2: production and transfer efficiency.

The shrinking budget explains why supporting another trophic level requires enough production below it. It does not prove an exact maximum length for every food chain, particularly when a food web imports resources or has branching diets. Lindeman's 1942 paper grouped feeding relationships into trophic levels, compared transfers and cellular respiration, and emphasized the ecosystem as a unit connecting living and nonliving components. That viewpoint made different organisms comparable through a common energy budget. See Lindeman, The Trophic-Dynamic Aspect of Ecology (1942).

Material recycling and energy flow describe different bookkeeping. Carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus can be reused through chemical reactions and transfers between organisms and their surroundings. Energy transferred as heat is conserved, but is no longer the same store of chemical energy available to a consumer; photosynthetic primary producers need continuing light input. A decomposer helps recycle material and also releases heat through metabolism. Thus loss from one feeding budget means transfer into other forms or routes, never destruction of energy. See Clark, Douglas and Choi, Biology 2e, 46.3: material cycles. Conservation of energy applies to the whole accounting.

Enthalpy is the state function obtained by adding pressure times volume to internal energy:Here $U$ denotes internal energy, also written $E$ in some references. Like internal energy, enthalpy is measured in joules and is an extensive variable. Its definition packages the internal energy change and expansion work into one useful quantity for fixed-pressure calculations. It does not define a body's stored heat. ^[ref]

For a fixed amount and composition of a simple compressible system, the relation between neighboring equilibrium states isHere $T$ is absolute temperature and $S$ is entropy. Thus entropy and pressure are the natural variables of this thermodynamic potential, with partial derivatives $T=(\partial H/\partial S{)}_p$ and $V=(\partial H/\partial p{)}_S$. Fixed composition matters: changing composition adds further terms. The formula follows in one line from the equilibrium first law of thermodynamics identity:The cancellation of $pdV$ is the reason enthalpy replaces volume with pressure as a natural variable. This identity concerns equilibrium states; it does not identify $TdS$ with actual irreversible heat transfer. ^[ref]

For a closed system undergoing a quasistatic process at constant pressure, require fixed amount and composition, only pressure-volume work, no friction, and unchanged bulk kinetic energy and potential energy. Then the actual first law of thermodynamics balance givesThe symbol $Q_p$ means transferred heat for this fixed-pressure process. If the piston example in heat additionally meets these conditions, its $20\mathrm{kJ}$ of incoming heat equals $\Delta H$, while $\Delta U=15\mathrm{kJ}$ and $p\Delta V=W=5\mathrm{kJ}$. The example shows exactly what enthalpy adds to internal energy: the expansion work required at the imposed pressure.

Within a single thermodynamic phase, heat capacity at constant pressure giveswith the amount and composition fixed. Constant $C_p$ gives $\Delta H=C_p\Delta T$; dividing by mass gives specific heat capacity at constant pressure. At equilibrium melting, enthalpy can instead change through latent heat while temperature stays fixed. The sensible heat example therefore adds two single-thermodynamic phase enthalpy changes and one latent heat contribution.

The usefulness of enthalpy lies in matching the imposed constraint: a fixed-pressure experiment naturally reports $\Delta H$, while fixed-volume heating with no other work reports $\Delta U$. Neither equality is universal. Additional work or changing pressure alters the relation between supplied heat and $\Delta H$; irreversible entropy production also prevents identifying actual $\delta Q$ with $TdS$. The separate Joule-Thomson coefficient branch uses enthalpy to describe throttling under its own assumptions.

Choose $n=10^{28}{\mathrm{m}}^{-3}$ for a uniform noninteracting electron model with two equally populated spin states. This is an original worked example, not a measured number density assigned to an actual material. Using $m_e\simeq 9.10938\times 10^{-31}\mathrm{kg}$, $\hslash \simeq 1.05457\times 10^{-34}\mathrm{J}\mathrm{s}$, and $k_B=1.380649\times 10^{-23}\mathrm{J}{\mathrm{K}}^{-1}$ givesThe conversion uses $1\mathrm{eV}=1.602176634\times 10^{-19}\mathrm{J}$: an electronvolt is an energy unit, while a joule is its SI counterpart. The dimensions provide a quick check: $n^{1/3}$ is inverse length, $\hslash n^{1/3}$ has units of momentum, $p_F^2/m$ has units of energy, and $E_F/k_B$ has units of temperature. The ratio $p_F/(m_{e}c)\simeq 0.002574$ verifies the nonrelativistic limit for this model, where $c$ is the speed of light.

Increasing this chosen number density eightfold doubles the Fermi momentum and quadruples the Fermi energy, giving approximately $6.7701\mathrm{eV}$. The exponent $2/3$ has a geometric origin: the number of occupied states grows as the cube of a momentum radius, but kinetic energy of nonrelativistic particles grows as its square. This makes Fermi energy a useful bridge between a count of particles and a mechanical energy scale.

Heat is energy transferred across a thermodynamic system's boundary because of a temperature difference. It is measured in joules, like work and internal energy. A hot cup transfers heat to cooler surroundings; its temperature describes its state, while the transferred heat describes a process. The cup stores internal energy, rather than a substance called heat. ^[ref]

For a closed system with unchanged bulk kinetic energy and potential energy, choose $Q>0$ for heat entering and $W>0$ for work done by the system. The first law of thermodynamics givesHere $U$ is the stored internal energy. For example, a sealed piston cylinder receiving $20\mathrm{kJ}$ of heat and delivering $5\mathrm{kJ}$ of work gains $15\mathrm{kJ}$ of internal energy. A closed system retains its matter while exchanging energy; it need not be an isolated system. ^[ref]

Unlike internal energy, heat is not a state function: different paths between the same equilibrium states can transfer different $Q$, with compensating differences in work. The symbol $\delta Q$ records this dependence on the path; there is no stored quantity whose difference is always $Q$. The two paths in first law of thermodynamics illustrate this directly. Supplied heat can raise temperature as sensible heat, change a phase fraction through latent heat, or help supply expansion work. Measuring temperature alone therefore does not determine transferred heat.

For a reversible thermodynamic process, $\delta Q_{\mathrm{rev}}=TdS$, where $T$ is absolute temperature and $S$ is entropy. This identification requires reversibility: an irreversible adiabatic process has $Q=0$ and can nevertheless increase entropy. Likewise $Q=\Delta H$, with enthalpy $H$, requires the particular fixed-pressure conditions in enthalpy. These distinctions make heat useful as a precise boundary-transfer quantity in heat engines, refrigerators and heating calculations.

Historically, James Prescott Joule's paddle experiments showed that stirring water with input work could raise its temperature, helping establish conservation of energy. The lesson is still useful: a temperature rise can result from work even without incoming heat. ^[ref]

The joule is the SI unit of energy, work, and heat. One newton of force acting along one metre of displacement does one joule of work. The relation $1\mathrm{J}=1\mathrm{N}\mathrm{m}$ makes mechanical and electrical transfers comparable in the same energy unit. ^[ref]

An ice bath can absorb heat while its temperature barely changes: the heat converts ice into water. The latent heat of fusion quantifies this melting budget. For a pure substance at its equilibrium melting temperature $T_m(p)$ and specified pressure $p$, define it here per unit mass:Here $h_l$ and $h_s$ are the specific enthalpies of the coexisting bulk liquid and solid, and $H$ is enthalpy. For ordinary melting, $L>0$, in $\mathrm{J}\mathrm{k}{\mathrm{g}}^{-1}$; an amount $m$ has a total fusion enthalpy $mL$ in joules. A molar fusion enthalpy instead has units $\mathrm{J}\mathrm{mo}{\mathrm{l}}^{-1}$ and equals $ML$, where $M=m/n$ is mass divided by amount of substance in $\mathrm{kg}\mathrm{mo}{\mathrm{l}}^{-1}$. Always check the normalization before inserting a tabulated value into an energy balance.^{[ref] [ref]}

For a closed system converting completely from solid to liquid at fixed pressure, with only pressure-volume work and negligible changes in bulk kinetic energy and potential energy, the first law of thermodynamics gives $Q_p=\Delta H=mL$. Both endpoints are at $T_m(p)$: warming initially colder ice or subsequently warming the resulting water requires additional sensible heat. Since $H=U+pV$, the corresponding specific internal energy jump is $\Delta u=L-p\Delta v$, where $v=V/m$; $L$ includes the work associated with the change in volume. Heat is transferred energy, whereas enthalpy is a state function. ^[ref]

Let $x=m_l/m$ be the liquid phase fraction by mass, rather than by volume. Neglecting interfacial contributions to enthalpy, equilibrium phase coexistence at fixed pressure givesIn the model above, reaching $T_m$ takes $2.10\mathrm{kJ}$ of sensible heat; the plateau then absorbs $33.40\mathrm{kJ}$, ending at a cumulative $35.50\mathrm{kJ}$. At $18.80\mathrm{kJ}$, half the mass is liquid and the temperature is still $T_m$. The final warming takes another $4.18\mathrm{kJ}$. The rounded $L$ and $c_l$ are inspired by the introductory ice-melting calorimetry values in Case Western's demonstration; constant properties and exact equilibrium throughout are stipulated model assumptions. ^[ref]

Within one thermodynamic phase, specific heat capacity at constant pressure is $c_p=(\partial h/\partial T{)}_p$, in $\mathrm{J}\mathrm{k}{\mathrm{g}}^{-1}{\mathrm{K}}^{-1}$; a sample's heat capacity at constant pressure is $C_p=m{c}_p$, in $\mathrm{J}{\mathrm{K}}^{-1}$. The plateau is a finite enthalpy change at zero temperature change through varying $x$, so neither a finite single-phase $c_p$ nor $Q=m{c}_p\Delta T$ represents it. The heating curve needs separate sensible heat intervals and a fusion contribution. ^[ref]

The plateau assumes a pure substance, a stable bulk solid-liquid phase coexistence pair, fixed pressure, and sufficiently slow, uniform heating to remain near thermodynamic equilibrium. The total mass and composition must remain fixed, with negligible evaporation and no other phase transition. A fast heater can produce temperature gradients, so a local thermometer need not read the equilibrium $T_m$. Neither $T_m$ nor $L$ is universal across pressures or compositions: common-pressure melting-point slope describes the pressure dependence of $T_m$, while mixtures can melt over a temperature range as their coexisting compositions change. Their liquidus must be consulted instead of assuming a pure-substance plateau. ^[ref]

This makes ice useful as a temperature buffer: under these conditions it can absorb $m_{s}L$ before the remaining solid mass $m_s$ disappears, after which the water warms. If a stipulated constant net input power $P$ goes entirely into melting, that buffer lasts $m_{s}L/P$. Reversing the equilibrium conversion releases the same fusion enthalpy during freezing. The beautiful thermodynamic connection is $L=T_m(s_l-s_s)$, with $s$ the specific entropy and $T_m$ absolute temperature: equal Gibbs free energies at phase coexistence allow different enthalpies and entropies. The nearly stationary thermometer hides a finite, measurable change of state. ^[ref]

A magnetic dipole moment is a vector that summarizes the strength and orientation of a localized magnetic source. For a planar current loop, it is the electric current times the vector area: $\mathbf{m}=IA\hat{\mathbf{n}}$. The right-hand rule fixes the unit normal vector $\hat{\mathbf{n}}$: curl the fingers of the right hand along the conventional current, and the thumb points along $\mathbf{m}$. This single vector predicts both the distant magnetic dipole field and the turning effect of an imposed magnetic field.^[ref]

The SI unit is ampere times square metre, $\mathrm{A}{\mathrm{m}}^2$, equivalently joule per tesla. A magnetic dipole moment is neither a magnetic field nor a magnetic monopole: a closed current loop can have a nonzero magnetic dipole moment while its net outward magnetic flux through any closed surface remains zero, as required by Gauss's law for magnetism.

For a localized, steady electric current density $\mathbf{J}(\mathbf{r})$, the more general definition isHere the cross product is integrated over the complete source, including return paths. Steadiness requires $\nabla \cdot \mathbf{J}=0$, and localization requires sufficiently rapid decay for the boundary terms to vanish. Under these assumptions the localized steady-current moment identities give $\int \mathbf{J}{d}^{3}r=0$: shifting the origin by $\mathbf{a}$ changes the proposed magnetic dipole moment by $-\frac{1}{2}\mathbf{a}\times \int \mathbf{J}{d}^{3}r=0$. An isolated open wire segment does not satisfy these assumptions. ^[ref].

Ohm's law states that an Ohmic conductor has electric current proportional to its applied electric potential difference, with constant electrical resistance under fixed material conditions:Here $V=\varphi (A)-\varphi (B)$ is the terminal electric potential difference, and positive $I$ enters at $A$ and exits at $B$. This sign convention makes $VI$ the electrical power absorbed. The straight-line relation through the origin lets one constant predict the response at many applied electric potential differences. Merely defining $R=V/I$ at one nonzero operating point does not establish Ohm's law: a component may have a ratio that varies with applied electric potential difference. Material and temperature must be specified and held fixed; many components have a nonlinear response. ^[ref].

For the ideal resistor model $R=2\Omega$ at electric potential difference $V=5\mathrm{V}$,This power is converted to internal energy by Joule heating; a watt is a joule per second. If the model holds for time $10\mathrm{s}$, the transferred energy is $125\mathrm{J}$. Doubling electric potential difference doubles electric current and quadruples power for the same fixed $R$. The model keeps material temperature fixed even while calculating Joule heating; appreciable changes in temperature may require a changing electrical resistance. ^[ref].

In 1827, Georg Ohm published his mathematical account of electrical transport in Die galvanische Kette, mathematisch bearbeitet. On printed page 36, his relation $S=A/L$ expresses electric current in terms of total driving tension and a reduced length incorporating electrical conductivity and geometry. This is historical notation: his $A$ is not the wire cross-sectional area used here, and his $L$ is not simply the wire's physical length. The striking idea is that material response and geometry can be combined into one quantity governing an electrical circuit. ^[ref].

In three dimensions use the $k$-space density of states $(L/2\pi {)}^3$ per spin species and the spherical shell volume $4\pi k^{2}dk$:Thus the three-dimensional free-electron density of states grows as ${ϵ}^{1/2}$. For physical electrons, including both spin states givesAll three total density of states functions have units ${\mathrm{J}}^{-1}$ when energy is in joules; they count states per energy interval. The paper explicitly suppresses spin in (a) but does not repeat that convention in (b), so giving both conventions avoids a hidden factor-of-two ambiguity. Parts (c)--(f) below use the physical two-spin-state electron gas.

Let $d=1,2,3$ and take a specimen of length, area or volume $L^d$. One monovalent atom per unit cell supplieselectrons. At zero temperature, the Pauli exclusion principle fills the lowest energy states, with two spin states per spatial wavevector. The occupied region is an interval, disk or ball of radius $k_F$. Using the $k$-space density of states gives, in one dimension,In two dimensions,In three dimensions,Each Fermi energy follows from the free electron model dispersion relation $E_F={\hslash }^2{k}_F^2/(2m)$. The Fermi wavevectors have units ${\mathrm{m}}^{-1}$ and the Fermi energies have units joules for $a$ in metres and $m$ in kilograms. No numerical lattice spacing is supplied, so numerical energies in electronvolts cannot be uniquely calculated. The spin factor of two is necessary here for actual monovalent crystals; the spinless auxiliary count of part (a) was not an instruction to remove electron spin from these crystals.

The ground-state energies are $1.50\mathrm{eV}$ and $0.376\mathrm{eV}$, respectively. For a particle in a box of width $L$, the wave function must vanish at both infinite walls. The lowest nonzero standing wave therefore has wavelength $2L$, giving the kinetic energy eigenvalueUsing the electron mass and converting joules to electronvolts givesDoubling the confinement length divides this kinetic energy by four. A zero potential energy inside the box does not imply zero total energy: a constant, zero-momentum wave function cannot satisfy both wall conditions unless it vanishes everywhere. This is a concrete manifestation of quantum confinement and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.

The volt is the SI unit of electric potential and electric potential difference: $1\mathrm{V}=1J/C$, one joule per coulomb. A positive electric charge of $2\mathrm{C}$ moved through a potential increase of $3\mathrm{V}$ gains $\Delta U=q\Delta \Phi =6\mathrm{J}$ of potential energy; the electric field does $-6\mathrm{J}$ of work. ^[ref].

The watt is the SI unit of power, one joule per second. Joule heating at $12.5\mathrm{W}$ transfers $125\mathrm{J}$ of energy over a time of $10\mathrm{s}$ if that power stays constant. ^[ref].

Use the leading nonrelativistic magnetic coupling for an electronic level with total angular momentum operator $\mathbf{J}$, and choose the $z$ axis along a uniform external magnetic field $\mathbf{B}=B\hat{\mathbf{z}}$, $B\ge 0$. Write its magnetic quantum number as $m_J$, so $J_z|J,m_J⟩=\hslash m_J|J,m_J⟩$. There are $2J+1$ possibilities from $-J$ to $J$. With Landé g-factor $g_J$, the first-order shift isHere $e>0$ is the magnitude of the electron electric charge, $m_e$ its mass, $h$ the Planck constant, and ${\mu }_B$ the Bohr magneton. Both $g_J$ and $m_J$ are dimensionless; with $B$ measured in tesla and ${\mu }_B$ in joules per tesla, $\Delta E$ is in joules. The photon frequency shift $\Delta {\nu }_{ul}$ is in hertz, not angular frequency; indices $u,l$ denote upper and lower levels. NIST states this weak-field convention and its orbital/spin assumptions explicitly.^[ref]

The sign follows directly from magnetic dipole potential energy. Within this electronic $J$ multiplet, the projected magnetic dipole moment is $\mathbf{\mu }=-g_J{\mu }_B\mathbf{J}/\hslash$. Therefore $H_Z=-\mathbf{\mu }\cdot \mathbf{B}$ has the displayed positive coefficient. Subtracting the shifts of the two levels and using photon energy $h{\nu }_{ul}=E_u-E_l$ gives the transition formula. For the orbital case, ${\mu }_B/h=e/(4\pi m_e)$ gives the same leading frequency spacing as the classical charged oscillator. This explains the historical sensitivity to charge divided by mass; the quantum state derivation here is modern.

“Weak” compares interaction energies: mixing with neighbouring fine structure levels must be small, so $J$ remains a useful quantum number. The formula keeps the term linear in $B$ and neglects quadratic shifts. It also omits hyperfine structure; if that is resolved and controls the coupling, the appropriate total electronic-plus-nuclear angular momentum and splitting factor must replace $J,g_J$. Weak compared with fine structure does not automatically mean weak compared with hyperfine structure.