Kinetic theory of an ideal monoatomic gas

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around the kinetic theory of an ideal monoatomic gas, specifically the treatment of velocity vectors. The original poster questions the method of deriving component vectors, arguing that velocity vectors should be treated as vectors rather than scalars. A respondent clarifies that the average squared velocity can be treated as a scalar, explaining that when averaging over all directions, a factor of 1/3 arises from geometric considerations. The conversation highlights the use of trigonometric functions and the Pythagorean theorem in understanding these averages. The exchange concludes with appreciation for the insights shared.
miikaelf
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Hi everbody!



This has been bugging me for quite some time now, so I would be forever grateful and challenge you to think about this.



According to the Wikipedia (and phyiscs textbooks),

" Since the assumption is that the particles move in random directions, we will have to conclude that if we divide the velocity vectors of all particles in three mutually perpendicular directions, the average value along each direction must be same. (This does not mean that each particle always travel in 45 degrees to the coordinate axes.)
Therefore the velocity vector Vx2=V2/3.
"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_theory

My beef is with how they explain deriving the component vectors.
The velocity vectors (or their squares) are *vectors* and not scalar values, thus should be added and subtracted as vectors (see attachment).
This means that they *should NOT* be simply divided by three, but be dealt with as vectors.

No physics text I have come across so far has adressed this, so

a) Is this correct (I presume it is, otherwise my faith in humanity and physics will crumble to dust)

and

b) Why can we treat them as scalar values?



Thank you and have a happy new year!
 

Attachments

  • Adding vectors.jpg
    Adding vectors.jpg
    10 KB · Views: 504
Physics news on Phys.org
They divide the average squared velocity (which is a scalar) by 3 to get the average squared x-component of the velocity (which is also a scalar).

In your sketch, ##|V_x|=\cos(\beta) |V|## (without squares), so ##V_x^2=\cos^2(\beta)V^2##. If you average the angle over the full sphere, you get a factor of 1/3 (it is easier to see in 2 dimensions, where cos^2 has an average of 1/2), so ##<V_x^2>=\frac{1}{3}<V^2>##.
 
Hey mfb

Thank you for answering; you are right, and what is more, the solution you came upon using the average of cos is quite an interesting one, cheers!
Between the time of posting this question and your answer, I came to the same conclusion, however using pythagorean theorem instead.
Still, yours is much more interesting, so thanks again.
 
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...
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?
Back
Top