A general potential energy for a multi-particle system

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the formulation of potential energy in multi-particle systems, specifically exploring whether a total potential energy function can be defined that encompasses pairwise interactions and potentially higher-order interactions among particles. The scope includes theoretical considerations and mathematical reasoning related to force derivation from potential energy in systems with two or more particles.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Technical explanation, Debate/contested, Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that for a system of two or more particles, potential energy functions are typically defined between pairs of particles, leading to a total conservative force expressed as a sum over these pairwise potentials.
  • One participant questions the feasibility of defining a total potential energy function that would yield the same force for any particle, suggesting that while a sum of pairwise potentials seems reasonable, evaluating derivatives at different particle positions may complicate this approach.
  • Another participant suggests a specific formulation for total potential energy as a double sum over pairwise potentials, asserting that the derivatives of potentials between non-interacting particles would be zero.
  • There is a discussion about the possibility of extending the concept to include N-body forces, with some participants indicating that nothing fundamentally forbids more complex interactions beyond pairwise potentials.
  • One participant introduces the idea of a total potential energy that includes contributions from three-body and higher interactions, suggesting a more general formulation that cannot be reduced to pairwise interactions alone.
  • Another participant references a framework for many-body potential energies that incorporates single, pair, and three-body interactions, highlighting the complexity of interactions in multi-particle systems.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the feasibility of defining a total potential energy function that encompasses all interactions in a multi-particle system. While some agree on the validity of pairwise potentials, others argue for the necessity of considering higher-order interactions, indicating that the discussion remains unresolved with multiple competing views.

Contextual Notes

Participants note limitations regarding the assumptions made in defining potential energy functions, particularly in relation to the nature of interactions (pairwise vs. N-body) and the implications for force calculations. There is also mention of unresolved mathematical steps in evaluating derivatives of potentials at various particle positions.

etotheipi
For a system of two or more particles, it is customary to define potential energy functions ##V_{ij}## between pairs of particles, so that the total conservative force (not necessarily total) on any given particle is $$\mathbf{F}_i = \sum_{j\neq i} -\nabla_i V_{ij}$$as a sum over all other particles ##j##, evaluated at the position of ##i##. Also, ##V_{ij} = V_{ij}(\mathbf{r}_i - \mathbf{r}_j)## depends only on the relative separation of both particles.

I wondered if it were ever possible to find a total potential energy function, which would have the property that if ##V = V(\mathbf{r}_1, \mathbf{r}_2, \dots \mathbf{r}_n)##, then that same force ##\mathbf{F}_i## would be $$\mathbf{F}_i = -\nabla_i V$$ for any choice of particle ##i##? ##\nabla## is a linear operator so it seems reasonable to suggest ##V = V_{12} + V_{13} + \dots + V_{n-1, n}##, but I'm not sure if it is possible to evaluate the derivatives of e.g. the potential energy between particles 3 and 4, at the position of particle 2 (e.g. does ##\nabla_2 V_{34}## make sense?), although this would have to be zero.

Thanks!
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: troglodyte
Physics news on Phys.org
I would say no because of this pairwise description which you have stated above.Maybe some combinatorial arguments are missing to expand the concept to include also such cases.
 
From the two equations of OP, It V should be
V = \frac{1}{2}\sum_{i} \sum_{j,j \neq i}V_{ij}
As for your concern
\nabla_iV_{jk}=0
for ##i \neq j,k##
 
  • Love
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: troglodyte and etotheipi
anuttarasammyak said:
From the two equations of OP, It V should be
V = \frac{1}{2}\sum_{i} \sum_{j,j \neq i}V_{ij}
As for your concern
\nabla_iV_{jk}=0
for ##i \neq j,k##

I agree, this is what I meant by ##V = V_{12} + V_{13} + \dots + V_{n-1, n}##.

If I consider a 3 particle system s.t. ##V = V_{12} + V_{13} + V_{23}## then $$-\nabla_{\mathbf{r}_1}V = -\nabla_{\mathbf{r}_1}V_{12} -\nabla_{\mathbf{r}_1}V_{13} -\nabla_{\mathbf{r}_1}V_{23} = \mathbf{F}_{12} + \mathbf{F}_{13} + \mathbf{0} = \mathbf{F}_1$$ So in fact I think it does work that ##\mathbf{F}_i = -\nabla_i V##
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: troglodyte and anuttarasammyak
etotheipi said:
For a system of two or more particles, it is customary to define potential energy functions ##V_{ij}## between pairs of particles, so that the total conservative force (not necessarily total) on any given particle is $$\mathbf{F}_i = \sum_{j\neq i} -\nabla_i V_{ij}$$as a sum over all other particles ##j##, evaluated at the position of ##i##. Also, ##V_{ij} = V_{ij}(\mathbf{r}_i - \mathbf{r}_j)## depends only on the relative separation of both particles.

I wondered if it were ever possible to find a total potential energy function, which would have the property that if ##V = V(\mathbf{r}_1, \mathbf{r}_2, \dots \mathbf{r}_n)##, then that same force ##\mathbf{F}_i## would be $$\mathbf{F}_i = -\nabla_i V$$ for any choice of particle ##i##? ##\nabla## is a linear operator so it seems reasonable to suggest ##V = V_{12} + V_{13} + \dots + V_{n-1, n}##, but I'm not sure if it is possible to evaluate the derivatives of e.g. the potential energy between particles 3 and 4, at the position of particle 2 (e.g. does ##\nabla_2 V_{34}## make sense?), although this would have to be zero.

Thanks!
Indeed you are right. The two-body form is only quite common (e.g., in the astronomical many-body problem). In general nothing fundamental (i.e., symmetry principles of Newtonian mechanics) forbid more complicated ##N##-body forces, and indeed that's what has to be taken into account in the nuclear many-body problem. Here are some references:

https://www.physicsforums.com/threa...y-when-carefully-analysed.979739/post-6263544
 
  • Informative
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Adesh, troglodyte and etotheipi
@vanhees71 thanks for the reference. There seem to be two distinct ideas here. The first is of a system of N particles interacting via only two body forces s.t. $$V = \frac{1}{2}\sum_{i} \sum_{j,j \neq i}V_{ij}$$with the corresponding relation of $$\mathbf{F}_i = -\nabla_i V = -\sum_{j \neq i} \nabla_i V_{ij}$$and the second idea is one of N particles interacting via an N body force for which ##V = V(\mathbf{r}_1, \mathbf{r}_2, \dots, \mathbf{r}_N)## and cannot be broken down into pairs ##V_{ij}##.

It's reasonable perhaps to generalise to a system of ##N## particles interacting via ##k## body forces such that ##V = V(\mathbf{r}_1, \mathbf{r}_2, \dots, \mathbf{r}_N) = V_{1,2, \dots, k} + V_{1,3, \dots, k+1} + \dots + V_{N-k+1, N-k+2, \dots, N}##.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: troglodyte
I found another nice explanation here about many body potential energies, such that in a system of interacting particles $$V_{TOT} = \sum_i^N V_1(\vec{r}_i) + \sum_{i<j}^N V_2(\vec{r}_i, \vec{r}_j) + \sum_{i<j<k}^N V_3(\vec{r}_i, \vec{r}_j, \vec{r}_k) + \dots$$ such that ##\vec{F}_i = -\nabla_{\vec{r}_i} V_{TOT}##, and ##V_2##, ##V_3##, etc. arise due to 2/3/etc. particle interactions respectively. Very interesting stuff!

Often any given three particle potential energy is parameterised by ##V_3 = V_3(r_{ij}, r_{ik}, \theta_{ijk})##.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71

Similar threads

Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
3K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
361
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K