Derivation of ideal gas law by Hamiltonian mechanics

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on the statistical mechanics derivation of the ideal gas law, highlighting confusion around specific equations and their physical interpretations. A key point of contention is the incorrect labeling of the time average momentum of a particle, which should be referred to as kinetic energy instead. Participants also express uncertainty about the meaning of the equation involving the scalar product of position vectors and area elements, questioning its dimensional correctness. Clarifications suggest that the variables arise from approximating a discrete model with a continuous one, yet concerns remain about the validity of these derivations. Overall, the conversation underscores the complexities and nuances in understanding the ideal gas law through Hamiltonian mechanics.
Hausdorff
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Hi!

I am trying to understand the statistical mechanics derivation of the ideal gas law shown at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideal_gas_law inder "Derivations".

First of all, the statement "Then the time average momentum of the particle is:
\langle \mathbf{q} \cdot \mathbf{F} \rangle= ... =-3k_BT.". Isn't this wrong? For sure, the dimension of \langle \mathbf{q} \cdot \mathbf{F} is energy, as is the dimension of -3k_BT and not momentum.

Secondly, I do not understand the equation
-\langle \sum_{i=1}^{N}\mathbf{q}_k \cdot \mathbf{F}_k \rangle = P \oint_{\mathrm{surface}} \mathbf{q} \cdot d\mathbf{S}.
I dot not understand what \mathbf{q} is, since all position vectors have been subsricpted. Nor do I understand the physical interpretation of \mathbf{q} \cdot d\mathbf{S}: the scalar product of \mathbf{q} (a position vector?) and the vector area element.

If anybody could shed some light on this, I would be very grateful.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hausdorff said:
Hi!

I am trying to understand the statistical mechanics derivation of the ideal gas law shown at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideal_gas_law inder "Derivations".

First of all, the statement "Then the time average momentum of the particle is:
\langle \mathbf{q} \cdot \mathbf{F} \rangle= ... =-3k_BT.". Isn't this wrong? For sure, the dimension of \langle \mathbf{q} \cdot \mathbf{F} is energy, as is the dimension of -3k_BT and not momentum.
I agree with you there. It should be "time average kinetic energy of the particle". You should post a talk comment in the Wikipedia article.

Secondly, I do not understand the equation
-\langle \sum_{i=1}^{N}\mathbf{q}_k \cdot \mathbf{F}_k \rangle = P \oint_{\mathrm{surface}} \mathbf{q} \cdot d\mathbf{S}.
I dot not understand what \mathbf{q} is, since all position vectors have been subsricpted. Nor do I understand the physical interpretation of \mathbf{q} \cdot d\mathbf{S}: the scalar product of \mathbf{q} (a position vector?) and the vector area element.

If anybody could shed some light on this, I would be very grateful.
Pressure is the average force/unit area of the gas. So the time average of the force created by a single particle on the container is F = PΔS where ΔS is the area of the container wall that is interacting with the particle (ie. in a collision between the particle and the wall). So \oint PdS is the total force on all the particles of the gas.

Where it gets a little unclear is setting the total energy to P∫qds. This does not explain the physics. A better explanation can be found on the Wikipedia page on Kinetic theory.

AM
 
Thank you for your reply!

I have been discussing this on another forum as well. There it was explained to me that q and F arise from approximation of the discrete model with a continuous one, so that the derivation with additional steps, would look something like
-\langle \sum_{k=1}^{N} \mathbf{q}_k \cdot \mathbf{F}_k \rangle \approx \int_{\mathrm{volume}}\mathbf{q}\cdot \mathbf{F}dV=<br /> \oint_{\mathrm{surface}}\mathbf{q}\cdot (Pd\mathbf{S})=P\oint_{\mathrm{surface}}\mathbf{q} \cdot d\mathbf{S}...,
where the second is valid to due F vanishing everywhere except for at the surface.

I have looked at the more intuitive derivation on the wiki page on kinetic theory. However, I wanted to understand the more rigorous statistical mechanics proof as well.
 
Hausdorff said:
There it was explained to me that q and F arise from approximation of the discrete model with a continuous one, so that the derivation with additional steps, would look something like
-\langle \sum_{k=1}^{N} \mathbf{q}_k \cdot \mathbf{F}_k \rangle \approx \int_{\mathrm{volume}}\mathbf{q}\cdot \mathbf{F}dV,
I don't follow this. It does not appear to be dimensionally correct. This has dimensions of Force x distance x volume.

AM
 
This is somewhat misleading since the equipartition theorem holds only true for quadratic forms of the canonical variables, i.e., for the harmonic oscillator. The classical grand-canonical partition function is given by
Z=\sum_{N=0}^{\infty} \exp(\alpha N) \frac{z^N}{N!} = \exp(z \exp \alpha),
with the single-particle partion function
z=\int \mathrm{d}^3 \vec{x} \mathrm{d}^3 \vec{p} \exp \left [-\beta \left (\frac{\vec{p}^2}{2m}+\frac{\omega^2}{2} \vec{x}^2 \right ) \right ]=\frac{8 \pi m^{3/2}}{\beta^3 \omega^3}.
Then you get
\langle N \rangle=\frac{\partial \ln Z}{\partial \alpha}=\frac{8 \pi^3 m^{3/2} \exp \alpha}{\beta^3 \omega^3}
and
\langle H \rangle = -\frac{\partial \ln Z}{\partial \beta} = 3 \frac{\langle N \rangle}{\beta}.
As you see only in a harmonic oscillator potential you get the mean energy in the form given in Wikipedia.
 
Hello everyone, Consider the problem in which a car is told to travel at 30 km/h for L kilometers and then at 60 km/h for another L kilometers. Next, you are asked to determine the average speed. My question is: although we know that the average speed in this case is the harmonic mean of the two speeds, is it also possible to state that the average speed over this 2L-kilometer stretch can be obtained as a weighted average of the two speeds? Best regards, DaTario
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...
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...
Back
Top