Lennard Jones Potential & Kinetic Energy

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on modeling two particle interactions using the Lennard-Jones potential, specifically addressing challenges in forcing the particles into the potential well. The user calculates a total energy of -6.0*10-20 by determining the kinetic energy needed based on the potential energy at a separation distance of 2.5*10-8. There is uncertainty about whether the energy requirements are interpreted correctly and if the kinetic energy calculations are accurate. Suggestions include starting one particle at zero velocity to simplify the model and considering an inertial frame for calculations. The user seeks clarification on energy interpretations and the effectiveness of their current approach.
relskhan
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
So I'm trying to model two particle interaction subject only to Lennard Jones potential. I have a specific potential I am using:
B3AADfbCIAEOi8o.jpg


My problem is forcing the two particles into the potential well. I have the particles at a separation distance of 2.5*10-8. The way I interpret this potential is that I can set a total energy of -6.0*10-20 by giving the particles a Kinetic Energy of 3.95*10-20 (Where Total Energy TE=KE + U or KE = TE - U => KE = -6.0*10-20 +9.95*10-20 = 3.95*10-20 , the -9.95*10-20 comes from U(2.5*10-8).

To set the kinetic energy I'm using 1/2 m (v12+v22). And giving particle 1 an initial velocity equal to some factor of particle 2's velocity.

Unfortunately, this is still not working. So I am either interpreting the different energy requirements on the diagram wrong - or not calculating the velocity for the KE correctly. Any ideas??
 
Physics news on Phys.org
How many dimensions? In dimensions higher than 1 you'll need a centrifugal term.

Actually, I'm not sure if this answers your question.
 
UVCatastrophe said:
How many dimensions? In dimensions higher than 1 you'll need a centrifugal term.

Actually, I'm not sure if this answers your question.
Good Point - I should have specified. This is all 1-D, I will 'upscale' to 3-D later, but for now, I just want the simplest model.
 
What isn't working about it? It might be easier to work out in an inertial frame where one particle has 0 velocity.
 
Calion said:
What isn't working about it? It might be easier to work out in an inertial frame where one particle has 0 velocity.
Well I didn't want to get into the details too far - I mostly want to make sure my interpretation of the Energies are correct. I could try starting the particle at 0 velocity - but - the potential will move it I'm sure.
 
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