Classical Ideal Gas: Pathria's Insight on Non-Interacting Particles

AI Thread Summary
Pathria's discussion on non-interacting particles highlights that negligible mutual interactions and minimal overlap of wave packets lead to a lack of spatial correlations among particles. The second statement emphasizes that the gas remains non-degenerate, allowing classical statistics to apply effectively. The interpretation suggests that the probability of finding particles in the same location is low, indicating that their wavefunctions do not significantly overlap. This condition is mathematically supported by the relationship between the thermal De Broglie wavelength and the average interparticle distance. Overall, the discussion clarifies the conditions under which classical ideal gas behavior is valid.
rbwang1225
Messages
112
Reaction score
0
In the book of Pathria(p.16), he mentioned that If (i) the mutual interactions among particles are negligible and (ii) the wave packets of individual particles do not significantly overlap, then there does not exist any spatial correlations among the particles in the system composed of non-interacting particles.

I don't really understand the second statement.

Can anyone interpret it more clearly? Thanks in advance.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
rbwang1225 said:
In the book of Pathria(p.16), he mentioned that If (i) the mutual interactions among particles are negligible and (ii) the wave packets of individual particles do not significantly overlap, then there does not exist any spatial correlations among the particles in the system composed of non-interacting particles.

I don't really understand the second statement.

Can anyone interpret it more clearly? Thanks in advance.
I could be wrong but I think it is a fancy way of saying that the particles do not have a moment of inertia. This would mean that the particles cannot acquire internal energy. Perhaps others will comment.

AM
 
No, the second statement means that the gas is not degenerate so that you have to apply quantum statistics and the classical statistics works well.
 
In my own point of view, I think the 2nd statement is saying that the probability of finding the particles at the same place is small, which is to say the wavefunctions do not overlap significantly. But I am not sure, can anybody comment on it more clearly?
 
Wave functions overlapping does not necessarily mean that they are at the same position. Consider plane waves. They would overlap if their wave vectors have approximately equal values, which would mean that their momenta are approximately the same. But, a plane wave is extended throughout the whole volume, so you cannot say the particles are nearby.

You should not ascribe too much weight to their 'condition'. It simply comes from the math. Namely, consider Fermi-Dirac or Bose-Einstein distribution:

<br /> \overline{n}_{i} = \frac{1}{\exp\left(\frac{\varepsilon_{i} - \mu}{T}\right) \pm 1}<br />

They would both reduce to the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution:

<br /> \overline{n}_{i} = \exp\left(\frac{\mu - \varepsilon_{i}}{T}\right)<br />

when:

<br /> \exp\left(\frac{\varepsilon_{i} - \mu}{T}\right) \gg 1<br />

The left hand side is a monotonically increasing function of energy. So, it has a lower bound for the lowest possible energy of the particles. We may take this to be zero. Then, we still have to satisfy the condition:

<br /> \exp\left(-\frac{\mu}{T}\right) \gg 1 \Leftrightarrow \exp\left(\frac{\mu}{T}\right) \ll 1<br />

The chemical potential needs to be negative and equal several times the temperature by magnitude for this inequality to be satisfied (because of the exponential). The chemical potential is fixed essentially by the density of particles. Let us evaluate it for a free ideal gas under the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution: Then, the plane waves are energy eigenstates:

<br /> N = \sum_{i}{\overline{n}_{i}} = \sum_{\mathbf{k}}{\exp\left(\frac{\mu - \varepsilon_{k}}{T}\right)}<br />

<br /> N = \exp\left(\frac{\mu}{T}\right) \, \sum_{\mathbf{k}}{\exp\left(-\frac{\hbar^{2} k^{2}}{2 m T}\right)}<br />

Going over from summation to integration with respect to \mathbf{k} according to the well-known rule:

<br /> \sum_{\mathbf{k}}{f_{\mathbf{k}}} = V \, \int{\frac{d^{3} k}{(2\pi)^{3}} f(\mathbf{k})}<br />

we get:

<br /> N = V \, \exp\left(\frac{\mu}{T}\right) \, \frac{4\pi}{(2\pi)^{3}} \, \int_{0}^{\infty}{k^{2} \, \exp\left(-\frac{\hbar^{2} k^{2}}{2 m T}\right) \, dk}<br />

The integral can be made dimensionless by introducing:

<br /> x \equiv \frac{\hbar^{2} k^{2}}{2 m T} \Rightarrow k = \frac{(2 m T x)^{\frac{1}{2}}}{\hbar}, \; dx = \frac{(2 m T)^{\frac{1}{2}} \, x^{-\frac{1}{2}}}{2 \hbar} \. dx<br />

<br /> N = V \, \exp\left(\frac{\mu}{T}\right) \, \frac{1}{2\pi^{2}} \, \frac{(2 m T)^{\frac{3}{2}}}{2 \hbar^{3}} \, \int_{0}^{\infty}{x^{\frac{1}{2}} \, e^{-x} \, dx}<br />

The value of the integral is \Gamma(\frac{3}{2}) = \pi^{1/2}/2[/tex] and we can identify n \equiv N/V. Then, we get for the chemical potential:<br /> <br /> &lt;br /&gt; \exp\left(\frac{\mu}{T}\right) = n \, \left(\frac{2 \pi \hbar^{2}}{m T}\right)^{\frac{3}{2}} \ll 1&lt;br /&gt;<br /> <br /> We identify:<br /> <br /> &lt;br /&gt; \lambda_{T} = \left(\frac{2 \pi \hbar^{2}}{m T}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}} = \frac{h}{\sqrt{2 \pi m T}}&lt;br /&gt;<br /> <br /> as the <i>thermal De Broglie wavelength</i> and r = n^{-1/3}[/tex] as the average interparticle distance. Then, the above condition can be written as:&lt;br /&gt; &lt;br /&gt; &amp;lt;br /&amp;gt; \exp\left(\frac{\mu}{T}\right) = \left(\frac{\lambda_{T}}{r}\right)^{3} \ll 1 \Leftrightarrow \lambda_{T} \ll r&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt; &lt;br /&gt; , i.e. we can use classical statistics (the gas is non-degenerate) if the thermal De Broglie wavelength is much smaller than the average inter particle distance. I guess this is why they interpret it as their wavefunctions (whose wavelengths are of the order of \lambda_{T}) should not &amp;#039;overlap&amp;#039;.
 
Last edited:
\overline{n}_{i} = \frac{1}{\exp\left(\frac{\varepsilon_{i} - \mu}{T}\right) \pm 1}
 
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...
Back
Top