Gibbs free energy in standard state vs. equilibrium












2












$begingroup$


I have a problem with the definition of the standard Gibbs energy and its connection to the equilibrium constants.



I think, that I've basically understood what the different equation mean but there is one thing, I'm unable to understand:



On the one hand:



One may describe a chemical reaction with $Delta G=Delta G^circ + RTln{Q}$. In equilibrium $Delta G = 0$ and the equation reads $Delta G^circ = -RT ln{K}$.



On the other hand:



The definition of standard state is very clear: pressure = 1 bar and all reactants and products must have activity = 1.



If I consider these two aspects separately, everything seems to be fine. But these two concepts have to be valid at the same time, what leads to $Delta G^circ = 0$ (always), since $K=1$ (all activities are per definition = 1).



Therefore, $Delta G^circ$ would be always zero. I know that this isn't true, but I don't understand why.



Can anyone explain this to me?



Thanks!






physical-chemistry reaction-mechanism equilibrium free-energy







share|improve this question









$endgroup$








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    "since $K=1$" not necessarily true; it is $Q = 1$. Nobody said that at standard state the system must be in equilibrium.
    $endgroup$
    – orthocresol♦
    Mar 24 at 15:48












  • $begingroup$
    ok, but the formulae say: At standard state $Delta G^circ = -RTln{K}$ and K is the ratio of the activities of reactants and products in equilibrium, due to the standard state definition K = 1, because it says: each $a=1$. Doesn't this definition disagree with your comment? I find this all really confusing.
    $endgroup$
    – user76122
    Mar 24 at 16:14










  • $begingroup$
    I find that terribly confusing and wrong if it claims $K = 1$.
    $endgroup$
    – orthocresol♦
    Mar 24 at 16:20










  • $begingroup$
    I know it is wrong, but I don't get why :( Did you understand my problem, that is the pure formula seems to contradict the general understanding...
    $endgroup$
    – user76122
    Mar 24 at 17:36










  • $begingroup$
    @user76122 Orthocresol is right. Your definition of standard state in the context of $Delta G^{0}$ is wrong. The standard state of a pure material entails that its activity is 1. But in the context of the equation for $Delta G$ you deal conceptually with mixtures and thus not pure materials. If you follow my derivation of the formula (see here) you can see which assumptions go into $Delta G^{0}$. It is true that it is defined for standard pressure/concentration, but activity being equal to 1 is not presumed.
    $endgroup$
    – Philipp
    Mar 24 at 18:24


















2












$begingroup$


I have a problem with the definition of the standard Gibbs energy and its connection to the equilibrium constants.



I think, that I've basically understood what the different equation mean but there is one thing, I'm unable to understand:



On the one hand:



One may describe a chemical reaction with $Delta G=Delta G^circ + RTln{Q}$. In equilibrium $Delta G = 0$ and the equation reads $Delta G^circ = -RT ln{K}$.



On the other hand:



The definition of standard state is very clear: pressure = 1 bar and all reactants and products must have activity = 1.



If I consider these two aspects separately, everything seems to be fine. But these two concepts have to be valid at the same time, what leads to $Delta G^circ = 0$ (always), since $K=1$ (all activities are per definition = 1).



Therefore, $Delta G^circ$ would be always zero. I know that this isn't true, but I don't understand why.



Can anyone explain this to me?



Thanks!






physical-chemistry reaction-mechanism equilibrium free-energy







share|improve this question









$endgroup$








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    "since $K=1$" not necessarily true; it is $Q = 1$. Nobody said that at standard state the system must be in equilibrium.
    $endgroup$
    – orthocresol♦
    Mar 24 at 15:48












  • $begingroup$
    ok, but the formulae say: At standard state $Delta G^circ = -RTln{K}$ and K is the ratio of the activities of reactants and products in equilibrium, due to the standard state definition K = 1, because it says: each $a=1$. Doesn't this definition disagree with your comment? I find this all really confusing.
    $endgroup$
    – user76122
    Mar 24 at 16:14










  • $begingroup$
    I find that terribly confusing and wrong if it claims $K = 1$.
    $endgroup$
    – orthocresol♦
    Mar 24 at 16:20










  • $begingroup$
    I know it is wrong, but I don't get why :( Did you understand my problem, that is the pure formula seems to contradict the general understanding...
    $endgroup$
    – user76122
    Mar 24 at 17:36










  • $begingroup$
    @user76122 Orthocresol is right. Your definition of standard state in the context of $Delta G^{0}$ is wrong. The standard state of a pure material entails that its activity is 1. But in the context of the equation for $Delta G$ you deal conceptually with mixtures and thus not pure materials. If you follow my derivation of the formula (see here) you can see which assumptions go into $Delta G^{0}$. It is true that it is defined for standard pressure/concentration, but activity being equal to 1 is not presumed.
    $endgroup$
    – Philipp
    Mar 24 at 18:24
















2












2








2





$begingroup$


I have a problem with the definition of the standard Gibbs energy and its connection to the equilibrium constants.



I think, that I've basically understood what the different equation mean but there is one thing, I'm unable to understand:



On the one hand:



One may describe a chemical reaction with $Delta G=Delta G^circ + RTln{Q}$. In equilibrium $Delta G = 0$ and the equation reads $Delta G^circ = -RT ln{K}$.



On the other hand:



The definition of standard state is very clear: pressure = 1 bar and all reactants and products must have activity = 1.



If I consider these two aspects separately, everything seems to be fine. But these two concepts have to be valid at the same time, what leads to $Delta G^circ = 0$ (always), since $K=1$ (all activities are per definition = 1).



Therefore, $Delta G^circ$ would be always zero. I know that this isn't true, but I don't understand why.



Can anyone explain this to me?



Thanks!






physical-chemistry reaction-mechanism equilibrium free-energy







share|improve this question









$endgroup$




I have a problem with the definition of the standard Gibbs energy and its connection to the equilibrium constants.



I think, that I've basically understood what the different equation mean but there is one thing, I'm unable to understand:



On the one hand:



One may describe a chemical reaction with $Delta G=Delta G^circ + RTln{Q}$. In equilibrium $Delta G = 0$ and the equation reads $Delta G^circ = -RT ln{K}$.



On the other hand:



The definition of standard state is very clear: pressure = 1 bar and all reactants and products must have activity = 1.



If I consider these two aspects separately, everything seems to be fine. But these two concepts have to be valid at the same time, what leads to $Delta G^circ = 0$ (always), since $K=1$ (all activities are per definition = 1).



Therefore, $Delta G^circ$ would be always zero. I know that this isn't true, but I don't understand why.



Can anyone explain this to me?



Thanks!






physical-chemistry reaction-mechanism equilibrium free-energy




physical-chemistry reaction-mechanism equilibrium free-energy






share|improve this question













share|improve this question











share|improve this question




share|improve this question










asked Mar 24 at 15:47









user76122user76122

334




334








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    "since $K=1$" not necessarily true; it is $Q = 1$. Nobody said that at standard state the system must be in equilibrium.
    $endgroup$
    – orthocresol♦
    Mar 24 at 15:48












  • $begingroup$
    ok, but the formulae say: At standard state $Delta G^circ = -RTln{K}$ and K is the ratio of the activities of reactants and products in equilibrium, due to the standard state definition K = 1, because it says: each $a=1$. Doesn't this definition disagree with your comment? I find this all really confusing.
    $endgroup$
    – user76122
    Mar 24 at 16:14










  • $begingroup$
    I find that terribly confusing and wrong if it claims $K = 1$.
    $endgroup$
    – orthocresol♦
    Mar 24 at 16:20










  • $begingroup$
    I know it is wrong, but I don't get why :( Did you understand my problem, that is the pure formula seems to contradict the general understanding...
    $endgroup$
    – user76122
    Mar 24 at 17:36










  • $begingroup$
    @user76122 Orthocresol is right. Your definition of standard state in the context of $Delta G^{0}$ is wrong. The standard state of a pure material entails that its activity is 1. But in the context of the equation for $Delta G$ you deal conceptually with mixtures and thus not pure materials. If you follow my derivation of the formula (see here) you can see which assumptions go into $Delta G^{0}$. It is true that it is defined for standard pressure/concentration, but activity being equal to 1 is not presumed.
    $endgroup$
    – Philipp
    Mar 24 at 18:24
















  • 2




    $begingroup$
    "since $K=1$" not necessarily true; it is $Q = 1$. Nobody said that at standard state the system must be in equilibrium.
    $endgroup$
    – orthocresol♦
    Mar 24 at 15:48












  • $begingroup$
    ok, but the formulae say: At standard state $Delta G^circ = -RTln{K}$ and K is the ratio of the activities of reactants and products in equilibrium, due to the standard state definition K = 1, because it says: each $a=1$. Doesn't this definition disagree with your comment? I find this all really confusing.
    $endgroup$
    – user76122
    Mar 24 at 16:14










  • $begingroup$
    I find that terribly confusing and wrong if it claims $K = 1$.
    $endgroup$
    – orthocresol♦
    Mar 24 at 16:20










  • $begingroup$
    I know it is wrong, but I don't get why :( Did you understand my problem, that is the pure formula seems to contradict the general understanding...
    $endgroup$
    – user76122
    Mar 24 at 17:36










  • $begingroup$
    @user76122 Orthocresol is right. Your definition of standard state in the context of $Delta G^{0}$ is wrong. The standard state of a pure material entails that its activity is 1. But in the context of the equation for $Delta G$ you deal conceptually with mixtures and thus not pure materials. If you follow my derivation of the formula (see here) you can see which assumptions go into $Delta G^{0}$. It is true that it is defined for standard pressure/concentration, but activity being equal to 1 is not presumed.
    $endgroup$
    – Philipp
    Mar 24 at 18:24










2




2




$begingroup$
"since $K=1$" not necessarily true; it is $Q = 1$. Nobody said that at standard state the system must be in equilibrium.
$endgroup$
– orthocresol♦
Mar 24 at 15:48






$begingroup$
"since $K=1$" not necessarily true; it is $Q = 1$. Nobody said that at standard state the system must be in equilibrium.
$endgroup$
– orthocresol♦
Mar 24 at 15:48














$begingroup$
ok, but the formulae say: At standard state $Delta G^circ = -RTln{K}$ and K is the ratio of the activities of reactants and products in equilibrium, due to the standard state definition K = 1, because it says: each $a=1$. Doesn't this definition disagree with your comment? I find this all really confusing.
$endgroup$
– user76122
Mar 24 at 16:14




$begingroup$
ok, but the formulae say: At standard state $Delta G^circ = -RTln{K}$ and K is the ratio of the activities of reactants and products in equilibrium, due to the standard state definition K = 1, because it says: each $a=1$. Doesn't this definition disagree with your comment? I find this all really confusing.
$endgroup$
– user76122
Mar 24 at 16:14












$begingroup$
I find that terribly confusing and wrong if it claims $K = 1$.
$endgroup$
– orthocresol♦
Mar 24 at 16:20




$begingroup$
I find that terribly confusing and wrong if it claims $K = 1$.
$endgroup$
– orthocresol♦
Mar 24 at 16:20












$begingroup$
I know it is wrong, but I don't get why :( Did you understand my problem, that is the pure formula seems to contradict the general understanding...
$endgroup$
– user76122
Mar 24 at 17:36




$begingroup$
I know it is wrong, but I don't get why :( Did you understand my problem, that is the pure formula seems to contradict the general understanding...
$endgroup$
– user76122
Mar 24 at 17:36












$begingroup$
@user76122 Orthocresol is right. Your definition of standard state in the context of $Delta G^{0}$ is wrong. The standard state of a pure material entails that its activity is 1. But in the context of the equation for $Delta G$ you deal conceptually with mixtures and thus not pure materials. If you follow my derivation of the formula (see here) you can see which assumptions go into $Delta G^{0}$. It is true that it is defined for standard pressure/concentration, but activity being equal to 1 is not presumed.
$endgroup$
– Philipp
Mar 24 at 18:24






$begingroup$
@user76122 Orthocresol is right. Your definition of standard state in the context of $Delta G^{0}$ is wrong. The standard state of a pure material entails that its activity is 1. But in the context of the equation for $Delta G$ you deal conceptually with mixtures and thus not pure materials. If you follow my derivation of the formula (see here) you can see which assumptions go into $Delta G^{0}$. It is true that it is defined for standard pressure/concentration, but activity being equal to 1 is not presumed.
$endgroup$
– Philipp
Mar 24 at 18:24












2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















4












$begingroup$

As explained in the comments, the standard state conditions lead to $Q=1$ and therefore $$Delta G=Delta G^circ+ RTln{1}=Delta G^circ$$ On the other hand at equilibrium $Q=K$ and so $$Delta G=Delta G^circ + RTln{K}$$ This of course leads to $Delta G^circ = -RTln{K}$ since at equilibrium $Delta G=0$.



So you might want to think of it as multiple statements:




  1. For the conversion of reactants to products in their standard states $Q=1$

  2. At equilibrium $Delta G=0$

  3. At equilibrium $Q=K$


  4. $Delta G^circ$ is the free energy change for conversion of reactants to products in their standard states.


The first statement is consistent with the definition of standard states.
The second and fourth statements follow from combination of the first and second laws of thermodynamics.
The third statement is a definition of $K$.



$K$ and $Delta G^circ$ are very much connected, but $Delta G^circ$ does not describe the change in free energy from reactants to products at equilibrium. $K$ and $Delta G^circ$ are not points on the reaction progress curve. Rather they are related to the slope of that curve.






share|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    So, based on your answer and on the comments above, I think that my understanding increases. These are just two different point of views or two different points of the same equation: $Delta G=Delta G^circ + RTln{Q}$. My misunderstanding arises from the equation: $Delta G^circ = - RTln{K}$, since it seems to connect standard ($Delta G^circ$) state with equilibrium ($K$) and that's not the meaning of this formula, correct?
    $endgroup$
    – user76122
    Mar 25 at 10:12












  • $begingroup$
    @user76122 $K$ and $Delta G^circ$ are very much connected. One point that is confusing for a beginner is that $Delta G^circ$ does not describe the change in free energy from reactants to products at equilibrium. I'll add this to my answer.
    $endgroup$
    – Night Writer
    Mar 25 at 11:42










  • $begingroup$
    At equilibrium, there is no change in free energy neither a net conversion from reactants to products (or vice versa). In my understanding, if you consider the "hanging rope"-style curve of $G(xi)$, $Delta G^circ$ and $K$ are just two different "points" on that curve, describing different things. The connection is, that these points lie on the same curve and therefore, can be calculated from each other. This is what is shown by the equations. Did you mean it that way (or at least in a similar way)? I'd like to emphasize that I'm trying to understand and not to correct you :)
    $endgroup$
    – user76122
    Mar 25 at 12:53










  • $begingroup$
    @user76122 I would not interpret $Delta G^circ$ and $K$ as points on the progress curve. Rather they are related to the slope of that curve.
    $endgroup$
    – Night Writer
    Mar 25 at 19:25






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Thanks! By digging deeper, I found the following answer: chemistry.stackexchange.com/a/41864/76122 There it is claimed, that $Q=1$ has to lie on the curve, since $Q$ alters from $infty$ to zero.
    $endgroup$
    – user76122
    Mar 28 at 9:42





















1












$begingroup$

What you enter into $K$ are not the activities of the pure reactants and pure products at standard state (if you did then, yes, $K$ would be 1). Rather, it is their activities at equilibrium (raised, of course, to the power of their respective stochiometric coefficients). And, at equilibrium, these activities are generally not equal to one.






share|improve this answer











$endgroup$














    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: "431"
    };
    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
    },
    onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });














    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fchemistry.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f111475%2fgibbs-free-energy-in-standard-state-vs-equilibrium%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes








    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    4












    $begingroup$

    As explained in the comments, the standard state conditions lead to $Q=1$ and therefore $$Delta G=Delta G^circ+ RTln{1}=Delta G^circ$$ On the other hand at equilibrium $Q=K$ and so $$Delta G=Delta G^circ + RTln{K}$$ This of course leads to $Delta G^circ = -RTln{K}$ since at equilibrium $Delta G=0$.



    So you might want to think of it as multiple statements:




    1. For the conversion of reactants to products in their standard states $Q=1$

    2. At equilibrium $Delta G=0$

    3. At equilibrium $Q=K$


    4. $Delta G^circ$ is the free energy change for conversion of reactants to products in their standard states.


    The first statement is consistent with the definition of standard states.
    The second and fourth statements follow from combination of the first and second laws of thermodynamics.
    The third statement is a definition of $K$.



    $K$ and $Delta G^circ$ are very much connected, but $Delta G^circ$ does not describe the change in free energy from reactants to products at equilibrium. $K$ and $Delta G^circ$ are not points on the reaction progress curve. Rather they are related to the slope of that curve.






    share|improve this answer











    $endgroup$













    • $begingroup$
      So, based on your answer and on the comments above, I think that my understanding increases. These are just two different point of views or two different points of the same equation: $Delta G=Delta G^circ + RTln{Q}$. My misunderstanding arises from the equation: $Delta G^circ = - RTln{K}$, since it seems to connect standard ($Delta G^circ$) state with equilibrium ($K$) and that's not the meaning of this formula, correct?
      $endgroup$
      – user76122
      Mar 25 at 10:12












    • $begingroup$
      @user76122 $K$ and $Delta G^circ$ are very much connected. One point that is confusing for a beginner is that $Delta G^circ$ does not describe the change in free energy from reactants to products at equilibrium. I'll add this to my answer.
      $endgroup$
      – Night Writer
      Mar 25 at 11:42










    • $begingroup$
      At equilibrium, there is no change in free energy neither a net conversion from reactants to products (or vice versa). In my understanding, if you consider the "hanging rope"-style curve of $G(xi)$, $Delta G^circ$ and $K$ are just two different "points" on that curve, describing different things. The connection is, that these points lie on the same curve and therefore, can be calculated from each other. This is what is shown by the equations. Did you mean it that way (or at least in a similar way)? I'd like to emphasize that I'm trying to understand and not to correct you :)
      $endgroup$
      – user76122
      Mar 25 at 12:53










    • $begingroup$
      @user76122 I would not interpret $Delta G^circ$ and $K$ as points on the progress curve. Rather they are related to the slope of that curve.
      $endgroup$
      – Night Writer
      Mar 25 at 19:25






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      Thanks! By digging deeper, I found the following answer: chemistry.stackexchange.com/a/41864/76122 There it is claimed, that $Q=1$ has to lie on the curve, since $Q$ alters from $infty$ to zero.
      $endgroup$
      – user76122
      Mar 28 at 9:42


















    4












    $begingroup$

    As explained in the comments, the standard state conditions lead to $Q=1$ and therefore $$Delta G=Delta G^circ+ RTln{1}=Delta G^circ$$ On the other hand at equilibrium $Q=K$ and so $$Delta G=Delta G^circ + RTln{K}$$ This of course leads to $Delta G^circ = -RTln{K}$ since at equilibrium $Delta G=0$.



    So you might want to think of it as multiple statements:




    1. For the conversion of reactants to products in their standard states $Q=1$

    2. At equilibrium $Delta G=0$

    3. At equilibrium $Q=K$


    4. $Delta G^circ$ is the free energy change for conversion of reactants to products in their standard states.


    The first statement is consistent with the definition of standard states.
    The second and fourth statements follow from combination of the first and second laws of thermodynamics.
    The third statement is a definition of $K$.



    $K$ and $Delta G^circ$ are very much connected, but $Delta G^circ$ does not describe the change in free energy from reactants to products at equilibrium. $K$ and $Delta G^circ$ are not points on the reaction progress curve. Rather they are related to the slope of that curve.






    share|improve this answer











    $endgroup$













    • $begingroup$
      So, based on your answer and on the comments above, I think that my understanding increases. These are just two different point of views or two different points of the same equation: $Delta G=Delta G^circ + RTln{Q}$. My misunderstanding arises from the equation: $Delta G^circ = - RTln{K}$, since it seems to connect standard ($Delta G^circ$) state with equilibrium ($K$) and that's not the meaning of this formula, correct?
      $endgroup$
      – user76122
      Mar 25 at 10:12












    • $begingroup$
      @user76122 $K$ and $Delta G^circ$ are very much connected. One point that is confusing for a beginner is that $Delta G^circ$ does not describe the change in free energy from reactants to products at equilibrium. I'll add this to my answer.
      $endgroup$
      – Night Writer
      Mar 25 at 11:42










    • $begingroup$
      At equilibrium, there is no change in free energy neither a net conversion from reactants to products (or vice versa). In my understanding, if you consider the "hanging rope"-style curve of $G(xi)$, $Delta G^circ$ and $K$ are just two different "points" on that curve, describing different things. The connection is, that these points lie on the same curve and therefore, can be calculated from each other. This is what is shown by the equations. Did you mean it that way (or at least in a similar way)? I'd like to emphasize that I'm trying to understand and not to correct you :)
      $endgroup$
      – user76122
      Mar 25 at 12:53










    • $begingroup$
      @user76122 I would not interpret $Delta G^circ$ and $K$ as points on the progress curve. Rather they are related to the slope of that curve.
      $endgroup$
      – Night Writer
      Mar 25 at 19:25






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      Thanks! By digging deeper, I found the following answer: chemistry.stackexchange.com/a/41864/76122 There it is claimed, that $Q=1$ has to lie on the curve, since $Q$ alters from $infty$ to zero.
      $endgroup$
      – user76122
      Mar 28 at 9:42
















    4












    4








    4





    $begingroup$

    As explained in the comments, the standard state conditions lead to $Q=1$ and therefore $$Delta G=Delta G^circ+ RTln{1}=Delta G^circ$$ On the other hand at equilibrium $Q=K$ and so $$Delta G=Delta G^circ + RTln{K}$$ This of course leads to $Delta G^circ = -RTln{K}$ since at equilibrium $Delta G=0$.



    So you might want to think of it as multiple statements:




    1. For the conversion of reactants to products in their standard states $Q=1$

    2. At equilibrium $Delta G=0$

    3. At equilibrium $Q=K$


    4. $Delta G^circ$ is the free energy change for conversion of reactants to products in their standard states.


    The first statement is consistent with the definition of standard states.
    The second and fourth statements follow from combination of the first and second laws of thermodynamics.
    The third statement is a definition of $K$.



    $K$ and $Delta G^circ$ are very much connected, but $Delta G^circ$ does not describe the change in free energy from reactants to products at equilibrium. $K$ and $Delta G^circ$ are not points on the reaction progress curve. Rather they are related to the slope of that curve.






    share|improve this answer











    $endgroup$



    As explained in the comments, the standard state conditions lead to $Q=1$ and therefore $$Delta G=Delta G^circ+ RTln{1}=Delta G^circ$$ On the other hand at equilibrium $Q=K$ and so $$Delta G=Delta G^circ + RTln{K}$$ This of course leads to $Delta G^circ = -RTln{K}$ since at equilibrium $Delta G=0$.



    So you might want to think of it as multiple statements:




    1. For the conversion of reactants to products in their standard states $Q=1$

    2. At equilibrium $Delta G=0$

    3. At equilibrium $Q=K$


    4. $Delta G^circ$ is the free energy change for conversion of reactants to products in their standard states.


    The first statement is consistent with the definition of standard states.
    The second and fourth statements follow from combination of the first and second laws of thermodynamics.
    The third statement is a definition of $K$.



    $K$ and $Delta G^circ$ are very much connected, but $Delta G^circ$ does not describe the change in free energy from reactants to products at equilibrium. $K$ and $Delta G^circ$ are not points on the reaction progress curve. Rather they are related to the slope of that curve.







    share|improve this answer














    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer








    edited Mar 26 at 11:50

























    answered Mar 24 at 19:51









    Night WriterNight Writer

    2,721223




    2,721223












    • $begingroup$
      So, based on your answer and on the comments above, I think that my understanding increases. These are just two different point of views or two different points of the same equation: $Delta G=Delta G^circ + RTln{Q}$. My misunderstanding arises from the equation: $Delta G^circ = - RTln{K}$, since it seems to connect standard ($Delta G^circ$) state with equilibrium ($K$) and that's not the meaning of this formula, correct?
      $endgroup$
      – user76122
      Mar 25 at 10:12












    • $begingroup$
      @user76122 $K$ and $Delta G^circ$ are very much connected. One point that is confusing for a beginner is that $Delta G^circ$ does not describe the change in free energy from reactants to products at equilibrium. I'll add this to my answer.
      $endgroup$
      – Night Writer
      Mar 25 at 11:42










    • $begingroup$
      At equilibrium, there is no change in free energy neither a net conversion from reactants to products (or vice versa). In my understanding, if you consider the "hanging rope"-style curve of $G(xi)$, $Delta G^circ$ and $K$ are just two different "points" on that curve, describing different things. The connection is, that these points lie on the same curve and therefore, can be calculated from each other. This is what is shown by the equations. Did you mean it that way (or at least in a similar way)? I'd like to emphasize that I'm trying to understand and not to correct you :)
      $endgroup$
      – user76122
      Mar 25 at 12:53










    • $begingroup$
      @user76122 I would not interpret $Delta G^circ$ and $K$ as points on the progress curve. Rather they are related to the slope of that curve.
      $endgroup$
      – Night Writer
      Mar 25 at 19:25






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      Thanks! By digging deeper, I found the following answer: chemistry.stackexchange.com/a/41864/76122 There it is claimed, that $Q=1$ has to lie on the curve, since $Q$ alters from $infty$ to zero.
      $endgroup$
      – user76122
      Mar 28 at 9:42




















    • $begingroup$
      So, based on your answer and on the comments above, I think that my understanding increases. These are just two different point of views or two different points of the same equation: $Delta G=Delta G^circ + RTln{Q}$. My misunderstanding arises from the equation: $Delta G^circ = - RTln{K}$, since it seems to connect standard ($Delta G^circ$) state with equilibrium ($K$) and that's not the meaning of this formula, correct?
      $endgroup$
      – user76122
      Mar 25 at 10:12












    • $begingroup$
      @user76122 $K$ and $Delta G^circ$ are very much connected. One point that is confusing for a beginner is that $Delta G^circ$ does not describe the change in free energy from reactants to products at equilibrium. I'll add this to my answer.
      $endgroup$
      – Night Writer
      Mar 25 at 11:42










    • $begingroup$
      At equilibrium, there is no change in free energy neither a net conversion from reactants to products (or vice versa). In my understanding, if you consider the "hanging rope"-style curve of $G(xi)$, $Delta G^circ$ and $K$ are just two different "points" on that curve, describing different things. The connection is, that these points lie on the same curve and therefore, can be calculated from each other. This is what is shown by the equations. Did you mean it that way (or at least in a similar way)? I'd like to emphasize that I'm trying to understand and not to correct you :)
      $endgroup$
      – user76122
      Mar 25 at 12:53










    • $begingroup$
      @user76122 I would not interpret $Delta G^circ$ and $K$ as points on the progress curve. Rather they are related to the slope of that curve.
      $endgroup$
      – Night Writer
      Mar 25 at 19:25






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      Thanks! By digging deeper, I found the following answer: chemistry.stackexchange.com/a/41864/76122 There it is claimed, that $Q=1$ has to lie on the curve, since $Q$ alters from $infty$ to zero.
      $endgroup$
      – user76122
      Mar 28 at 9:42


















    $begingroup$
    So, based on your answer and on the comments above, I think that my understanding increases. These are just two different point of views or two different points of the same equation: $Delta G=Delta G^circ + RTln{Q}$. My misunderstanding arises from the equation: $Delta G^circ = - RTln{K}$, since it seems to connect standard ($Delta G^circ$) state with equilibrium ($K$) and that's not the meaning of this formula, correct?
    $endgroup$
    – user76122
    Mar 25 at 10:12






    $begingroup$
    So, based on your answer and on the comments above, I think that my understanding increases. These are just two different point of views or two different points of the same equation: $Delta G=Delta G^circ + RTln{Q}$. My misunderstanding arises from the equation: $Delta G^circ = - RTln{K}$, since it seems to connect standard ($Delta G^circ$) state with equilibrium ($K$) and that's not the meaning of this formula, correct?
    $endgroup$
    – user76122
    Mar 25 at 10:12














    $begingroup$
    @user76122 $K$ and $Delta G^circ$ are very much connected. One point that is confusing for a beginner is that $Delta G^circ$ does not describe the change in free energy from reactants to products at equilibrium. I'll add this to my answer.
    $endgroup$
    – Night Writer
    Mar 25 at 11:42




    $begingroup$
    @user76122 $K$ and $Delta G^circ$ are very much connected. One point that is confusing for a beginner is that $Delta G^circ$ does not describe the change in free energy from reactants to products at equilibrium. I'll add this to my answer.
    $endgroup$
    – Night Writer
    Mar 25 at 11:42












    $begingroup$
    At equilibrium, there is no change in free energy neither a net conversion from reactants to products (or vice versa). In my understanding, if you consider the "hanging rope"-style curve of $G(xi)$, $Delta G^circ$ and $K$ are just two different "points" on that curve, describing different things. The connection is, that these points lie on the same curve and therefore, can be calculated from each other. This is what is shown by the equations. Did you mean it that way (or at least in a similar way)? I'd like to emphasize that I'm trying to understand and not to correct you :)
    $endgroup$
    – user76122
    Mar 25 at 12:53




    $begingroup$
    At equilibrium, there is no change in free energy neither a net conversion from reactants to products (or vice versa). In my understanding, if you consider the "hanging rope"-style curve of $G(xi)$, $Delta G^circ$ and $K$ are just two different "points" on that curve, describing different things. The connection is, that these points lie on the same curve and therefore, can be calculated from each other. This is what is shown by the equations. Did you mean it that way (or at least in a similar way)? I'd like to emphasize that I'm trying to understand and not to correct you :)
    $endgroup$
    – user76122
    Mar 25 at 12:53












    $begingroup$
    @user76122 I would not interpret $Delta G^circ$ and $K$ as points on the progress curve. Rather they are related to the slope of that curve.
    $endgroup$
    – Night Writer
    Mar 25 at 19:25




    $begingroup$
    @user76122 I would not interpret $Delta G^circ$ and $K$ as points on the progress curve. Rather they are related to the slope of that curve.
    $endgroup$
    – Night Writer
    Mar 25 at 19:25




    1




    1




    $begingroup$
    Thanks! By digging deeper, I found the following answer: chemistry.stackexchange.com/a/41864/76122 There it is claimed, that $Q=1$ has to lie on the curve, since $Q$ alters from $infty$ to zero.
    $endgroup$
    – user76122
    Mar 28 at 9:42






    $begingroup$
    Thanks! By digging deeper, I found the following answer: chemistry.stackexchange.com/a/41864/76122 There it is claimed, that $Q=1$ has to lie on the curve, since $Q$ alters from $infty$ to zero.
    $endgroup$
    – user76122
    Mar 28 at 9:42













    1












    $begingroup$

    What you enter into $K$ are not the activities of the pure reactants and pure products at standard state (if you did then, yes, $K$ would be 1). Rather, it is their activities at equilibrium (raised, of course, to the power of their respective stochiometric coefficients). And, at equilibrium, these activities are generally not equal to one.






    share|improve this answer











    $endgroup$


















      1












      $begingroup$

      What you enter into $K$ are not the activities of the pure reactants and pure products at standard state (if you did then, yes, $K$ would be 1). Rather, it is their activities at equilibrium (raised, of course, to the power of their respective stochiometric coefficients). And, at equilibrium, these activities are generally not equal to one.






      share|improve this answer











      $endgroup$
















        1












        1








        1





        $begingroup$

        What you enter into $K$ are not the activities of the pure reactants and pure products at standard state (if you did then, yes, $K$ would be 1). Rather, it is their activities at equilibrium (raised, of course, to the power of their respective stochiometric coefficients). And, at equilibrium, these activities are generally not equal to one.






        share|improve this answer











        $endgroup$



        What you enter into $K$ are not the activities of the pure reactants and pure products at standard state (if you did then, yes, $K$ would be 1). Rather, it is their activities at equilibrium (raised, of course, to the power of their respective stochiometric coefficients). And, at equilibrium, these activities are generally not equal to one.







        share|improve this answer














        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer








        edited Mar 24 at 20:29

























        answered Mar 24 at 20:20









        theoristtheorist

        2488




        2488






























            draft saved

            draft discarded




















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Chemistry 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%2fchemistry.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f111475%2fgibbs-free-energy-in-standard-state-vs-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

            "Incorrect syntax near the keyword 'ON'. (on update cascade, on delete cascade,)

            Image
            .everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ height:90px;width:728px;box-sizing:border-box; } 2 total noob sorry any help greatly appreciated. I keep getting this "Incorrect syntax near the keyword 'ON'." heres my codes code one CREATE TABLE supplier ( supplierID INT PRIMARY KEY, ISBN INT FOREIGN KEY REFERENCES book(ISBN), price DECIMAL (5,2), ON UPDATE CASCADE, ON DELETE CASCADE, ); code two CREATE TABLE orders ( orderID INT PRIMARY KEY, customerID INT FOREIGN KEY REFERENCES customer(customerID), ISBN INT FOREIGN KEY REFERENCES book(ISBN), orderDate date, ON UPDATE CASCADE, ON DELETE CASCADE, ); Ive run out of stuff to try other than dumbing it down to uselessness. ...
            Read more

            Alcedinidae

            Image
            Alcedinidae Martin-pêcheur à dos bleu ( Alcedo azurea ) Classification (COI) Règne Animalia Embranchement Chordata Sous-embr. Vertebrata Classe Aves Ordre Coraciiformes Famille Alcedinidae Rafinesque, 1815 Les Alcédinidés ou Alcedinidae forment une famille d'oiseaux plus connus sous les noms de martins-pêcheurs et martins-chasseurs. Sommaire 1 Description 2 Répartition et habitat 3 Systématique 3.1 Liste alphabétique des genres 3.2 Liste des espèces 4 Chez les Anciens : l'alcyon 4.1 Étymologie (Littré) 4.2 Oiseau « fabuleux » ? 5 Notes 6 Articles connexes 7 Liens externes 7.1 Bibliographie Description | Ce sont des oiseaux compacts de taille petite à moyenne (10 à 46 cm), au bec droit et long, en forme de poignard. Leurs pattes sont courtes, et ils portent un plumage aux couleurs vives. Répartition et habitat | Cosmopolites, ils fréquentent surtout ...
            Read more

            Origin of the phrase “under your belt”?

            Image
            .everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ margin-bottom:0; } 17 1 Today, I found myself discussing what students should have "under their belts" during a lecture, and I wondered to myself if there was some inappropriate undertone here that I might be unaware of. Question : What is the origin of the phrase "under your belt"? A google search revealed some webpages (e.g. [1]) that assert its origin is related to consumption of food -- once a meal has been eaten, it's under your belt (which is a relief). However, with such websites, I have no way to determine fact from "random guy on the internet making stuff up". etymology idioms ...
            Read more