A Can KE be reformulated using |v| instead of v^2?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion explores whether kinetic energy (KE) and classical laws can be reformulated using the absolute value of velocity (|v|) instead of the square of velocity (v^2). While the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution provides a framework for understanding average speeds and energies, the participants note that using |v| could complicate energy calculations due to unit inconsistencies. The conversation also touches on the potential benefits of using v_avg in certain contexts, particularly in non-equilibrium settings where outliers may skew results. It is highlighted that while energy and momentum are conserved quantities, speed is not, making it less relevant in physical laws. The challenges of applying the absolute value function in physics due to its nonholomorphic nature are also acknowledged.
BallisticDisks
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
While doing some calculations on v_rms using the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution, I noticed that v_rms and v_avg are pretty similar (https://casper.berkeley.edu/astrobaki/index.php/File:MaxwellSpeedDist.png).
In fact, really it's just the choice of using the 1-norm (|v|_avg) vs. 2-norm sqrt(v^2 avg). When deriving v_rms or <KE> from the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution , we get <KE> = 0.5m<v^2> = 3kT/2; however, using v_avg from the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution we get v_avg = sqrt(8kT/(pi*m)) and then 0.5m<v>^2 = 4kT/pi.

In computer science/statistics, people often choose the distance metric <|x|> vs. sqrt<(x^2)> based on their needs, and generally <|x|> is thought to be better and more robust to outliers (yet has far worse properties, e.g., no convergence). I'm familiar with the work-energy theorem and the derivation of KE = 0.5mv^2 from Newton's 2nd law, but am trying to figure out if there are alternative formulations using |v|. I'm also familiar with the equipartition theorem with energies of form Ax^2 being assigned 0.5kT energy and am not sure how this would be reformulated using |v|.

So two questions:
1. Can KE/classical laws be reformulated using |v| instead of |v^2|, or has anything been published using the 1-norm (absolute value) or any other norm besides the 2-norm (square)? I realize the units of energy won't make sense with just changing how KE is computed. But, for example, speed could be defined as (sum |v|) instead of (sum v^2), though I'm not sure if people do this.

2. Are there cases where v_avg is useful to use instead of v_rms?

Thanks in advance for the help/dicussion! This has been gnawing at me since in CS/stats we usually have the choice of using |v| or v^2 to compare distributions, but I'm not sure if we're "forced" to use v^2 in physics because of fundamental laws (and if so which ones?).

Image is from: https://casper.berkeley.edu/astrobaki/index.php/Maxwellian_velocity_distribution
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Yep! I know that momentum = mv. I've only seen momentum used as a property of individual molecules as opposed to ensembles in stat mech (and also never seen a scalar formulation of momentum analogous to speed for velocity) . Is the average momentum of a system ever considered in a way similar to KE? Maybe (q1) is better posed as -- is there a macroscopic energy-like description of a system using |v| instead of v^2? For example, this could be useful in non-equillibrium settings where few particles have very high velocity and are outliers, and where v^2 could be misleading.

(q2) still remains -- is there a case where v_avg is useful to describe systems instead of v_rms? Or, is it really only used to describe the momentum of particles.
 
Last edited:
BallisticDisks said:
Can KE/classical laws be reformulated using |v| instead of |v^2|,
The units don’t work out as written. However, since v is a vector over the reals then |v^2|=|v|^2
 
Poor notation on my part. I meant reformulated with <|v|> instead of <v^2>. But also curious about if <|v|>^2 is ever useful to use.
 
Both total energy and total momentum are conserved. But total speed is not conserved, so it is less physically relevant. Of course, there are some uses, but not nearly as many.

Energy, momentum, and speed will all change depending on your frame of reference. But energy and momentum form a 4-vector, so laws involving them are covariant. Speed isn't a component of a tensor, so any laws involving speed will have to change depending on your frame of reference.

Also, the absolute value function is hard to work with since it's nonholomorphic.
 
Thread 'Question about pressure of a liquid'
I am looking at pressure in liquids and I am testing my idea. The vertical tube is 100m, the contraption is filled with water. The vertical tube is very thin(maybe 1mm^2 cross section). The area of the base is ~100m^2. Will he top half be launched in the air if suddenly it cracked?- assuming its light enough. I want to test my idea that if I had a thin long ruber tube that I lifted up, then the pressure at "red lines" will be high and that the $force = pressure * area$ would be massive...
I feel it should be solvable we just need to find a perfect pattern, and there will be a general pattern since the forces acting are based on a single function, so..... you can't actually say it is unsolvable right? Cause imaging 3 bodies actually existed somwhere in this universe then nature isn't gonna wait till we predict it! And yea I have checked in many places that tiny changes cause large changes so it becomes chaos........ but still I just can't accept that it is impossible to solve...

Similar threads

Replies
4
Views
1K
Back
Top