A general potential energy for a multi-particle system

AI Thread Summary
In multi-particle systems, potential energy is typically defined through pairwise interactions, represented as V_{ij}, leading to a total conservative force on any particle given by F_i = -∇_i V_{ij}. The discussion explores the possibility of a total potential energy function V that could yield the same force expression for any particle, suggesting V could be the sum of pairwise potentials. However, complexities arise when considering interactions beyond two-body forces, as seen in nuclear many-body problems. The conversation highlights that while two-body interactions are common, more complex N-body forces can exist, necessitating a broader formulation of potential energy that includes interactions among multiple particles. This exploration of potential energy functions underscores the intricate nature of particle interactions in physics.
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 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 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 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 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 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 vanhees71
Back
Top