Diffusion Ques: Unintuitive Concentration Change Over Time?

  • Thread starter Thread starter superwolf
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Diffusion
superwolf
Messages
179
Reaction score
0
If the gas particles in a box are uniformly distributed in the y and z directions, and linearly distributed in the x direction, is it true that the concentration won't change with time, according to the diffusion equation? I find this very unintuitive.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Me too. Can you go through the steps to show why you think the diffusion equation predicts that?
 
<br /> \frac{dc}{dt} = D \frac{d^2c}{dx^2}<br />.

If c(x,0) = 2-x, then

<br /> \frac{d^2c}{dx^2}=0<br />

and consequently

<br /> \frac{dc}{dt}=0<br />

That is, the concentration does not change with time.
 
Setting

\frac{\partial^2c}{\partial x^2}=0

for nonzero times means that you're replacing diffusing particles with new particles to keep c=2 at x=0, and you're removing all the particles at x=2 to keep c=0. In other words, you're maintaining the linear relationship.

For a constant amount of the diffusing species, try solving the equation for the boundary conditions

c(x,0)=2-x

\frac{\partial c(0,t)}{\partial x}=\frac{\partial c(2,t)}{\partial x}=0

which implies impermeable boundaries. You'll find that at long times the solution approaches c=1 everywhere. Make sense?
 
Thread 'Need help understanding this figure on energy levels'
This figure is from "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" by Griffiths (3rd edition). It is available to download. It is from page 142. I am hoping the usual people on this site will give me a hand understanding what is going on in the figure. After the equation (4.50) it says "It is customary to introduce the principal quantum number, ##n##, which simply orders the allowed energies, starting with 1 for the ground state. (see the figure)" I still don't understand the figure :( Here is...
Thread 'Understanding how to "tack on" the time wiggle factor'
The last problem I posted on QM made it into advanced homework help, that is why I am putting it here. I am sorry for any hassle imposed on the moderators by myself. Part (a) is quite easy. We get $$\sigma_1 = 2\lambda, \mathbf{v}_1 = \begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ 0 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_2 = \lambda, \mathbf{v}_2 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_3 = -\lambda, \mathbf{v}_3 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ -1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} $$ There are two ways...
Back
Top