Brownian Motion: Pollen and Red Ink in Water

AI Thread Summary
Brownian motion can be effectively demonstrated using pollen grains in water, as they exhibit random movement due to collisions with water molecules. In contrast, red ink may not be suitable for this demonstration unless it contains larger pigment particles. The solubility of red ink and its density compared to water raise practical concerns for its use in illustrating Brownian motion. The key concept is that Brownian motion indicates the presence of molecules in a fluid, with larger particles like pollen being observable. Overall, pollen grains are a practical choice for demonstrating this phenomenon in a liquid medium.
kate.k
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
The brownian motion setup using smoke and air particles represents and allow us to conclude that gaseous particles move randomly (in any direction).

Is there a setup using other particles and another fluid instead of smoke and air to represent the movement of liquid particles?

1) Can we use Pollen grains and water? Or Red ink and water?
2) Is the choice of pollen grains practical? For e.g. solubility of red ink/ movement of red ink in water or the density of pollen grains compared water?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Brownian motion is usually taken to indicate that matter consists of molecules. There is one big particle like pollen or a smoke particle that is observed to move randomly in what appears to be an indivisible fluid. The explanation for the random motion is that the indivisible fluid is actually made of molecules.

So pollen grains would work, but ink probably wouldn't (unless it has big grains of pigment).
 
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
Back
Top