Q: Fokker-Planck (Brownian motion) for undergrads?

AI Thread Summary
A user seeks references for teaching a physics undergrad about the mean-squared displacement in Brownian motion, specifically for free diffusion and optical traps. They find existing materials either too advanced or too simplistic, prompting a request for intermediate resources. Suggested references include "Noise and Fluctuations" by MacDonald and a book by Lemons, though the user has not fully reviewed the latter. The user also considers Einstein's original papers for inspiration, despite noting their complexity. Overall, the discussion emphasizes the need for accessible yet comprehensive educational materials on the topic.
Andy Resnick
Science Advisor
Education Advisor
Insights Author
Messages
7,664
Reaction score
3,711
All,

I'm looking for a reference to help guide one of my students- a motivated physics undergrad. I would like him to work through a derivation of the mean-squared displacement of a particle undergoing free Brownian motion (free diffusion) and then for a particle held in an optical trap.

All of the references I have are graduate-level, and a quick google search turns up either mathematically-oriented derivations:

http://physics.gu.se/~frtbm/joomla/media/mydocs/LennartSjogren/kap7.pdf
http://wwwf.imperial.ac.uk/~pavl/lec_fokker_planck.pdf

Or documents that merely state the results:

http://faculty.philau.edu/masoodir/PDF/Projects/Thermo/Brownian%20Motion.pdf

Does anyone have a recommendation for something midway between these two extremes?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Thanks!
 
"Noise and Fluctuations" by MacDonald is another option:

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0486450295/?tag=pfamazon01-20

If I recall correctly, it should be readable by an upper division undergrad (but then I read it after grad school so my perspective may be off).

It's been awhile since I've looked at them, but I wonder how readable Einstein's original papers are ... might be inspiring to read the original, perhaps after the basic calculation is understood?

jason

EDIT:

There is also a book by Lemons that I have only flipped through - may be worth a look but I haven't read it:

https://www.amazon.com/dp/080186867X/?tag=pfamazon01-20
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thanks- I'll check those out.

I pulled up Einsten's paper: the result of interest is in section 4, but the reasoning is difficult to follow (the relevant sentence reminds me of the cartoon '...then a miracle occurs"). On the other hand, this looks promising:
http://www.maths.qmul.ac.uk/~klages/people/msc_qirezi.pdf
 
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?
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'
Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...
Back
Top