Question about an "exact" distribution function

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the properties of an exact microscopic distribution function in phase-space, particularly focusing on the implications of the absence of particle creation or destruction. Participants explore the mathematical formulation of the distribution function and its time evolution without statistical averaging.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • The original post (OP) presents a distribution function defined as a sum of delta-functions and questions whether its time evolution can be expressed as a specific equation, invoking phase-space conservation.
  • One participant suggests considering a volume in phase-space and references Liouville's theorem to argue that the total number of particles remains constant, leading to a specific relationship involving the differentiation of the volume.
  • Another participant points out that the OP's equation lacks an ensemble average over phase-space trajectories, suggesting that this is a critical component for the discussion.
  • The OP clarifies that their inquiry is focused on the exact equation of motion for a system of particles without averaging, emphasizing a non-statistical mechanics approach.
  • A later reply expresses confusion about the OP's aim, asserting that without averaging, the left-hand side of the proposed equation does not represent a phase-space distribution function.
  • A participant provides a link to external material, suggesting that it may clarify the discussion, particularly referencing a specific equation from the provided resource.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants exhibit disagreement regarding the necessity of averaging in defining a phase-space distribution function, with some asserting it is essential while others explore the implications of an exact formulation without it. The discussion remains unresolved on these points.

Contextual Notes

There are limitations regarding the assumptions made about the nature of the distribution function and the implications of not performing statistical averaging. The discussion also reflects varying interpretations of phase-space behavior and its mathematical representation.

dRic2
Gold Member
Messages
887
Reaction score
225
Suppose I have an exact microscopic distribution function in phase-space defined as a sum of delta-functions, i.e
$$F( \mathbf x, \mathbf v, t) = \sum_{i} \delta( \mathbf x - \mathbf x_i ) \delta (\mathbf v - \mathbf v_i )$$
Can I conclude that, in absence of creation/destruction of particles,
$$ \frac {dF( \mathbf x, \mathbf v, t)}{dt} = \frac {\partial F} {\partial t} + \mathbf v \cdot \frac {\partial F} {\partial \mathbf x} + \mathbf a \cdot \frac {\partial F} {\partial \mathbf v} = 0$$
where ## \mathbf a = \frac {d \mathbf v}{dt}## Note that here no statistical averaging is involved.

I found that this is "trivially" derived from phase-space conservation, but although I get a feeling for it, I don't see it so clearly.

Thanks
Ric
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Maybe something like this?

Consider a volume ##\tau## in the case space. Then ##\frac {dN \tau}{dy} = 0## because the total number of particles can not change. Then differentiation of the product yields
##\frac {dN}{dt}\tau = -N \frac {d\tau}{dt} = 0## because Liouville's theorem tells that phase space behaves as an incompressible fluid, so the volume element must be unchanged.
 
In the OP the most important thing is missing in the intial equation, namely the (ensemble) average over the phase-space trajectories ##(x_j(t),v_j(t))## (though I'd prefer ##p_j## rather then ##v_j##).
 
My question is what happens if I do *not* perform an ensemble average.

This is not statistical mechanics just yet, it's just a question about the *exact* equation of motion for a system of particles
 
Then I don't understand what you are aiming at. Without an averaging the left-hand-side of the equation is not a phase-space distribution function.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K