Explaining Avogadro's Law using kinetic theory

AI Thread Summary
Avogadro's Law can be explained using kinetic theory by considering that gas particles behave like ideal, point-like billiard balls, which have similar properties despite differences in mass. The law states that at the same temperature and pressure, equal volumes of gases contain the same number of molecules. This is supported by the kinetic theory formula for pressure, which indicates that the mean kinetic energy of gas molecules is the same for all ideal gases at a given temperature. The discussion highlights that the relationship between pressure, volume, and the number of molecules can be derived from the principles of kinetic theory. Thus, Avogadro's Law holds true for ideal gases and serves as an approximation for nearly ideal gases.
Bipolarity
Messages
773
Reaction score
2
So far I have found a kinetic-theory explanation of the Boyle's Law, Charle's Law, and Pressure-Temperature Law. For example, for the pressure-temperature law: increasing the temperature of a gas while holding the volume constant causes the gas molecules to collide more frequently with the container of the gas, resulting in increased pressure.

Is there an explanation of the Avogadro's Law that uses the kinetic theory?

BiP
 
Physics news on Phys.org
i think avogadro's law relies on the fact that microscopically gas particles are like tiny billiard balls, aside from the mass difference they have essentially the same properties and are ideal (ideal collisions, no interaction between molecules etc)
 
bigerst said:
i think avogadro's law relies on the fact that microscopically gas particles are like tiny billiard balls, aside from the mass difference they have essentially the same properties and are ideal (ideal collisions, no interaction between molecules etc)

I don't see how the analogy is relevant here.

BiP
 
Avogadro's law is true for ideal gases (and those behave like a collection of point-like billard balls), and an approximation for gases which are nearly ideal.
What do you want to explain? Why some gases are nearly ideal?
 
In the case of the pressure law, it's not just that the more frequent hits increase the pressure, but that, on average each hit imparts a greater impulse. That's why \overline{c^2}, with the 'squared', appears in the kinetic theory formula for pressure:
pV = \frac{1}{3} Nm\overline{c^2}.

Now let's look at Avogadro. We need the additional input that molecules of all ideal gases at the same temperature have the same mean KE of translational motion, \frac{1}{2}m \overline{c^2}. [Jeans, in The kinetic Theory of Gases has a nice justification for this, using the fact that on average there must be no energy exchange in collisions between gas molecules and wall molecules if the gas is in equilibrium with its container walls.]

So for any two gases at the same temperature m_1\overline{c_1^2} = m_2\overline{c_2^2}.

So, using the pressure formula above:
\frac{p_1V_1}{N_1} = \frac{p_2V_2}{N_2}

This formula applies for equal temperatures, but if we also impose the conditions that p_1=p_2 and V_1=V_2, then N_1=N_2.

So at the same temperature and pressure, equal volumes of gases contain the same number of molecules!

[You can reach the same conclusion using \frac{1}{2}m \overline{c^2}=\frac{3}{2}kT, but this isn't quite as economical because the argument above does not require a specific relationship between temperature and mean KE, merely a knowledge that if two gases have the same mean molecular KE, their temperatures are the same, and the converse.]
 
Last edited:
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
This has been discussed many times on PF, and will likely come up again, so the video might come handy. Previous threads: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-a-treadmill-incline-just-a-marketing-gimmick.937725/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/work-done-running-on-an-inclined-treadmill.927825/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/how-do-we-calculate-the-energy-we-used-to-do-something.1052162/
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
Back
Top