Classical position/velocity probability

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the relationship between a particle's velocity and its probability of being found in a specific region of space, emphasizing that lower velocities correlate with higher probabilities. Two cases of particle velocity are analyzed: one oscillating symmetrically around v0 and another that oscillates around v0 with a lower bound. It is argued that the time spent at lower velocities increases the likelihood of finding the particle there. The symmetry of the cosine function is acknowledged, but it is noted that the overall velocity function's asymmetry influences the probability distribution. The conversation concludes with a clarification of how these factors interact to determine the likelihood of finding a particle at various velocities.
j1m1
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Probability to find a particle in some region of space is inversely proportional to velocity particle has in that region of space.
Let's say we have two cases: one particle has velocity given by v(t)=v0*Cos(w*t), and other by v(t)=v0-v1*Cos(w*t), (v0>v1).
Since particle spends more time in regions of low velocity this should imply that probability to find a particle with low velocity is bigger than to find it with high velocity . For the first case probability to find a particle with velocity around v0 should be equal to probability to find a particle with velocity around -v0. In the second case the probability to find a particle with velocity around v0-v1 should be much bigger that to find it with velocity v0+v1, but on the other hand v(t) is distribution of velocity of a particle in time, and from this it looks that probability to find a particle with velocity around v0-v1 should be equal to probability to find a particle with velocity around v0+v1.
All opinions appreciated.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
j1m1 said:
In the second case the probability to find a particle with velocity around v0-v1 should be much bigger that to find it with velocity v0+v1
It will be bigger, but not necessarily much bigger.

but on the other hand v(t) is distribution of velocity of a particle in time, and from this it looks that probability to find a particle with velocity around v0-v1 should be equal to probability to find a particle with velocity around v0+v1.
I don't follow your reasoning here. Can you try to explain in more detail why you think this?
 
I think probability in low velocity region should depend on v0-v1 (the closer they are together, the longer the time particle spends in low velocity region).
My reasoning is: if you look at v(t)=v0-v1*Cos(w*t), particle's velocity oscillates around v0, and Cos function is symmetric in t, meaning in one full period it will be as much positive as it will be negative,and in the same way. If I were to choose random time t, just by looking at this velocity distribution, I would have equal probability that particle has velocity around v0+v1 as v0-v1.
 
The cos function is symmetric, but the function ##t\mapsto v(t)## is not symmetric because of the asymmetric velocity v0, and it is that function that determines the likelihood of finding a point in a region, not just the Cos function.
 
Ok I think I understand now. Thank you for clarifying.
 

Thread '1:1 versus 2:1 Mechanical Advantage debate'

The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
View full post »

Thread 'Newton's first law?'

Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
View full post »
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'

Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'

Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...
View full post »

Similar threads

Classical mechanics problem for a free particle
Replies
2
Views
2K
Probability density function in classical mechanics
Replies
1
Views
1K
Classical Rotation: Referencing Rotational Motion in Mechanics
Replies
5
Views
1K
B Speed/velocity as a derivative
Replies
6
Views
2K
I need opinions on a Projectile Motion problem that I made up
Replies
11
Views
2K
Angular Velocity Vector; Relationship to Angular Momentum
Replies
1
Views
2K
B Thoughts about Galilean transformations
Replies
13
Views
2K
Solving Part c of Repulsive Force Homework Problem
Replies
2
Views
1K
I An actual meaning of instantaneous velocity
Replies
13
Views
1K
I Probability in statistical mechanics
Replies
23
Views
1K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top