How to approach this Brownian Motion Problems

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around understanding the differences between the gas constant Ra and R in the context of Boyle's law and the ideal gas law. Participants clarify that while both Ra and R represent gas constants, they are used in different equations, with Ra applicable in the context of Boyle's law (PV = RaT) and R in the ideal gas law (PV = nRT). The ideal gas law incorporates the number of moles (n), while the alternative form presented in the referenced book uses volume per mole (v = V/n), leading to the equation Pv = RT. There is confusion regarding the interpretation of variables n and n0, with a question raised about whether n represents one mole. The conversation emphasizes the importance of carefully understanding the equations and their variables in gas law applications.
xiaozegu
Messages
16
Reaction score
0

Attachments

  • L@X%60QP9MHGXO$3%25KNOFF%7D]7.jpg
    L@X%60QP9MHGXO$3%25KNOFF%7D]7.jpg
    20.1 KB · Views: 525
Physics news on Phys.org
Why do you think there's a difference? Isn't it just the universal gas constant in both cases?
 
clamtrox said:
Why do you think there's a difference? Isn't it just the universal gas constant in both cases?

Is Bolye's law's Ra equal to the R in the PV=NRT?
Bolye's law is PV = RaT
 
xiaozegu said:
Is Bolye's law's Ra equal to the R in the PV=NRT?
Bolye's law is PV = RaT

Sorry, but that's gibberish. Read more carefully what is done.

The ideal gas law is PV = nRT, where n is the number of moles of gas, V is volume, p is pressure, T is temperature and R is the gas constant.

The form used in the book you quote has instead v = V/n, volume per mole, and reads Pv = RT.
 
  • Like
Likes 1 person
clamtrox said:
Sorry, but that's gibberish. Read more carefully what is done.

The ideal gas law is PV = nRT, where n is the number of moles of gas, V is volume, p is pressure, T is temperature and R is the gas constant.

The form used in the book you quote has instead v = V/n, volume per mole, and reads Pv = RT.

Thanks. But I still do not know how to interpret the n and n0 in the after equation. Isn't n is 1 mol?
 
Thread 'Help with Time-Independent Perturbation Theory "Good" States Proof'
(Disclaimer: this is not a HW question. I am self-studying, and this felt like the type of question I've seen in this forum. If there is somewhere better for me to share this doubt, please let me know and I'll transfer it right away.) I am currently reviewing Chapter 7 of Introduction to QM by Griffiths. I have been stuck for an hour or so trying to understand the last paragraph of this proof (pls check the attached file). It claims that we can express Ψ_{γ}(0) as a linear combination of...

Similar threads

Back
Top