Deriving continuity equation of phase space in Statistical Mechanics

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on deriving the continuity equation in statistical mechanics by emphasizing that phase space points are conserved and not created or destroyed. The author utilizes the Leibniz rule for integration in three dimensions to analyze the behavior of phase points within a volume element. They express concern over a term related to the change in density within the volume, questioning why it is considered zero despite the flow of phase points across the boundary. The author grapples with the implications of this flow, suggesting that it indicates a change in the number of phase points within the volume. The discussion highlights the conceptual challenge of reconciling the conservation of phase points with changes in density and volume.
binbagsss
Messages
1,291
Reaction score
12
Hi,

So I am aiming to derive the continuity equation using the fact that phase space points are not created/destroyed.

So I am going to use the Leibiniz rule for integration extended to 3-d:

## d/dt \int\limits_{v(t)} F dv = \int\limits_{v(t)} \frac{\partial F}{\partial t} dV + \int\limits_{A(t)} F \vec{u_{A}}.\vec{n} dA ##,

##\vec{n}## the normal unit vector, where ##F=F(x_{1},x_{2},x_{3},t) ##

##\vec{u_{A}} ## is the surface velocity.

So let ##N_{D}## denote the number of phase points in a volume element ##D##, ##N## the total number of phase points.

Conservation of phase points =>
## \frac{d}{dt} N_{D}(t) =0 ##

## = - N \frac{d}{dt} \int\limits_{D} dp dq \rho (p,q,t) ##

where ##\rho = \rho (p,q,t) ## is the density of function.

So by Leibniz rule above I get a term describing the change due to the changing surface of ##A## - ## \partial D ## here

## = - N \int\limits_{\partial D} \rho \vec{V}.\vec{n} d\sigma ##, which is fine ,

where ##\vec{V}## is the velocityMY QUESTION:

The corresponding term to ##\int\limits_{v(t)} \frac{\partial F}{\partial t} dV ## is zero here.
I.e the contribution due to the change of ##\rho## within ##V##. I'm just having a little trouble understanding this conceptually... so my book states that:

"Since phase points cannot be created the only way that phase points can be added or subtracted from the volume V is to flow across its boundary, S. "

That's fine, and seems to make sense to me. But, if points are flowing across the boundary then surely the number inside V is changing. So looking at
## \int\limits_{v(t)} \frac{\partial \rho}{\partial t} dV ##,

##\frac{\partial \rho}{\partial t} \neq 0 ## if there is either a change in the number of phase points or a change in the volume, doesn't saying that the number is changing across the surface => number is changing within the volume and so ##\neq 0 ## for a given volume due to the number of phase points changing?

( I am fine with the rest of the derivation just stuck in this step)

Many thanks in advance.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
bump
 
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...
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?
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