Potential kinetic energy and temperature

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the relationship between kinetic energy, potential energy, and temperature in a non-equilibrium molecular dynamics model of magnesium oxide (MgO). Participants explore how the initial conditions and the dynamics of the system affect the observed temperature and energy distribution among atoms, particularly in the context of equipartition and the behavior of the system as it evolves over time.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant describes a simulation where atoms initially assigned high velocities experience a decrease in velocity and temperature as they move from their equilibrium positions, suggesting a transfer of kinetic energy into potential energy.
  • Another participant questions the reasonableness of assigning a single velocity to all atoms and suggests using a Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution for velocities.
  • A participant mentions that the simulation's timestep is sufficiently small to avoid instability, but there are concerns about energy conservation and the effects of high temperatures on the simulation's behavior.
  • Discussion includes the idea that potential energy can be considered "thermal" and that the equipartition theorem may explain the observed cooling effect as kinetic energy is converted to potential energy.
  • One participant speculates that the consistent reduction in average velocity to half the initial value might relate to the degrees of freedom in the two-dimensional model, questioning the applicability of the 2k_bT/3 law for temperature in this context.
  • Another participant proposes that the observed behavior might be due to equilibration rather than cooling, suggesting that potential energy terms could be approximated using a Taylor expansion around the ground state positions.
  • Concerns are raised about how the conversion of kinetic energy to potential energy affects the validity of the thermodynamic temperature equation, particularly regarding the implications for energy distribution among particles.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the interpretation of the energy dynamics in the simulation, particularly regarding the relationship between kinetic and potential energy and how this affects temperature. There is no consensus on the implications for thermodynamic temperature or the appropriateness of the models being used.

Contextual Notes

Participants note limitations related to the assumptions of energy conservation, the definition of temperature in the context of potential energy, and the potential need for larger lattice sizes to observe phonon development.

Hypatio
Messages
147
Reaction score
1
I have a working non-equilibrium molecular dynamics model of MgO. I first find the equilibrium positions of the atoms in the lattice and then introduce a temperature by assigning initial velocities in random directions for each atom. An equation relating atomic velocity and temperature is

mv^2=3k_BT
where k_b is the Boltzmann constant.

So for example, oxygen with mass=2.66*10^-26 kg, and with T=2000K each oxygen is assigned a velocity v=1766 m/s.

Running the simulation, however, I observe that as the atoms move out of their T=0K equilibrium positions their velocity decreases until they begin bouncing off zero as the atoms bounce off one another. When the system is in a steady state of vibration the average temperature and atomic velocity in the lattice becomes about 1/2 of the initially assigned temperature, ~880 m/s and ~1000 K in this case.

This seems to be a transfer of kinetic energy into potential energy from moving out of the bottom of the potential energy well, but I'm not sure? Is this associated with a particular concept or phenomenon? Latent heat? The decrease in velocity is roughly 1/2 for all temperatures so I don't think it is related to specific heat. Where is the energy going? Is the actual temperature of the lattice 1000K or 2000K? How do I determine temperature in such a case?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Assigning one value for the velocity for all atoms of one type is not reasonable. You'd better create a velocity distribution (Maxwell-Boltzmann).
Regarding what happens later on in your simulation, you need to tell us more about the time step of your simulation. Is it short enough so as not to blow up the simulation. What ensemble are you simulating? If you're simulating a microcanonical ensemble, is the total energy conserved? etc...
 
Hi UN,

I would have created a velocity distribution, but it appears that from the initial condition of constant temperature an appropriate distribution quickly occurs in the model.

The timestep is lower than a point of instability, although I think it is blowing up for "high" temperature simulations (>2500 K). I am currently using 1.0 femtoseconds. Significantly decreasing the timestep doesn't result in any clear changes for lower temperature simulations but I will try it for higher temperature.

I believe my simulation is essentially microcanonical. The lattice is isolated and free to expand or contract from vibration, although I will later simulate temperature gradients to evaluate thermal conductivity. It is a 20x20 (400 atom) two-dimensional lattice. I am not certain that energy is conserved although there is no reason to doubt it unless my interpretation of the temperature change is incorrect. The only thermal energy lost should be that related to the momentum of the entire lattice, which is small.

I think that the average velocity of the lattice becomes 1/2 the initial velocity because the potential energy increases when atoms are displaced from their equilibrium positions. It is always 1/2 because the given velocity is the maximum and the minimum is zero at the point of elastic rebound against adjacent atoms. But what does this mean for temperature?

The total energy associated with each atom should be the sum of it's kinetic and potential energy, but is the potential energy thermal? Does it contribute to temperature?
 
Yes, the potential energy is "thermal". What you do is starting in a positional configuration corresponding to T=0 and a kinematic configuration corresponding to T=2000 K (or whatever value). When your system equilibrates, some of the kinetic energy goes into potential energy (-> equipartition theorem), resulting in a configuration representative for some temperature 0<T<2000 K. The most obvious solution to your problem seems to be coupling a thermostat to your system. That's a dirty trick from a purist's perspective (but few people a purists nowadays, as dirty tricks get you more publications than formally proper work), but as I understood it you ultimately don't want to work in a microcanonical ensemble, anyways.
 
So perhaps, due to equipartition, I am seeing a kinetic 'cooling' on the order of 1/2 because I have 2 degrees of freedom in my two-dimensional model? And the 2k_bT/3 law cannot describe the temperature of my system. Furthermore, this should be related to specific heat. But then why am I getting similar values (1/2 initial temperature) for all temperatures? Is there something in my model that prevents a reasonable approximation of the strong temperature-dependence of specific heat? Maybe I need a larger lattice in which phonons develop?
 
My guess (without having seen your simulation): You do not really see cooling. You see equilibration. Assuming the deviations from the ground state positions are not too small, then you can Taylor expand around those. This will give you potential energy terms that are harmonics springs. The number of degrees of freedom (in the sense of the equipartition theorem) for the potential energy therefore equals the number of degrees of freedom in the kinetic energy for this approximated Hamiltonian => half of the energy (that was initially only in the kinetic terms) goes into the potential energy. That's irrespective of temperature (at least for as long as the ansatz with the Taylor expansion holds), the spatial dimension of your system, its size, and the specific heat.
 
Well, how is this related to the thermodynamic temperature then? It seems that the equation

\frac{1}{2}mv^2=\frac{3}{2}k_b T[\itex]<br /> <br /> cannot then be true for a particle because half the energy is converted into potential energy.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
5K
Replies
9
Views
2K