Question About Ideal Gas and Average Free Movement of Molecules

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Calstiel
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Average Gas
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the ideal gas model and the average free movement of molecules, specifically focusing on the calculations related to collision cross-section and mean free path. Participants explore the implications of various assumptions and the need for precise formulas in the context of idealized models.

Discussion Character

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

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the correctness of the formula for average free movement, suggesting the need to consider additional factors like a half-sphere for collisions.
  • Another participant argues that in an ideal gas, the term related to the half-sphere can be ignored due to low density conditions.
  • There is a contention about the existence of an exact formula versus approximations, with some participants asserting that physics inherently involves approximations.
  • A participant emphasizes the importance of deriving physics deductively and expresses discomfort with approximations.
  • Technical details are provided regarding the cross-section for collisions and the mean free path, including formulas and assumptions about atomic behavior.
  • Probability theory is introduced to describe the likelihood of collisions over distances, with detailed calculations presented by one participant.
  • Another participant acknowledges the derivation presented but indicates a desire to comment further on it later.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the necessity of including certain terms in the formula and the nature of approximations in physics. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the exact formula and the role of approximations in the ideal gas model.

Contextual Notes

Participants acknowledge that the discussion is based on idealized models, which may not fully capture the complexities of real-world scenarios. The assumptions regarding atomic behavior and density are also noted as potential limitations in the discussion.

  • #61
Charles Link said:
Using ## v^2_{rel} ## the dot product term will vanish, and the computation is straightforward, but I don't think the ##v_{rel} ## case (the correct way to do it) has been computed in these articles properly for any distribution. I don't think anyone has worked the ## v_{rel} ## case with the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution.
I'm just going by the result in Wikipedia. It says you can check the integral, which I admit I haven't done. I don't see that post #49 can compare with the calculation on Wikipedia.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Calstiel and Charles Link
Science news on Phys.org
  • #62
PeroK said:
I'm just going by the result in Wikipedia
Wiki =actually Hyperphysics does the general case, (they reference Maxwell-Boltzmann but work only the general case) and they do that somewhat incorrectly by writing ## \bar{v_{rel}}=( \bar{v^2} +\bar{v^2}_2-2 \bar{\vec{v}_1 \cdot \vec{v}_2})^{1/2} ##. This expression for the averages is only approximate and not exact, but Hyperphysics implies it is exact.

The bars for the average didn't come out properly in my Latex. Please go to the Hyperphysics article to see it more clearly: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Kinetic/menfre.html#c5
 
Last edited:
  • #63
Charles Link said:
This expression for the averages is only approximate and not exact, but Wiki implies it is exact.

I'm currently working on a computer simulation of the topic here, so I'm a bit off the thread, but in general its often important to check the sources in Wiki, maybe someone here is doing that.
 
  • #65
@PeroK That makes me want to go back and check my result of post 49=I did get 4/3 for the ## v_{rel} ## case where all speeds are the same. Thank you=this looks like two very good links that you gave us. :)
 
  • #66
Charles Link said:
@PeroK That makes me want to go back and check my result of post 49=I did get 4/3 for the ## v_{rel} ## case where all speeds are the same. Thank you=this looks like two very good links that you gave us. :)
That may well be correct. All speeds the same is different from a M-B distribution.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Charles Link
  • #67
PeroK said:
That may well be correct. All speeds the same is different from a M-B distribution.
I'm almost a little surprised by the two different results, ## \sqrt{2}## and 4/3, especially when Hyperphysics does some incorrect handwaving to get the first result for what they seem to be showing as the case in general, regardless of the distribution. I have looked over my calculations of post 49 though, and I believe that I computed the case of all the same speed correctly. Thanks very much for your inputs. :)
 
Last edited:
  • #68
Charles Link said:
I have looked over my calculations of post 49 though, and I believe that I computed the case of all the same speed correctly.
So you've said repeatedly. But how is your calculation physically relevant? Can you cite any physical situation for which a gas is expected to have a mono-speed distribution (a Dirac delta function)?
 
  • #69
renormalize said:
So you've said repeatedly. But how is your calculation physically relevant? Can you cite any physical situation for which a gas is expected to have a mono-speed distribution (a Dirac delta function)?
This is more of an interest to me simply from a mathematical sense, because Hyperphysics seems to imply in the "link" of post 62 that the ## \sqrt{2} ## is the result for the general case. The simple case of post 49 if my calculations are correct would show that this is not the case.

One reason I chose this case (of all speeds being the same) is that it is simple enough to solve. I still need to study the "links" that @PeroK provided in post 64. The mathematics for the M-B case looks somewhat complex from a first look at it.
 
Last edited:
  • #70
Charles Link said:
This is more of an interest to me simply from a mathematical sense, because Hyperphysics seems to imply in the "link" of post 62 that the ## \sqrt{2} ## is the result for the general case.
The Hyperphysics page is clearly wrong in this respect. In general ##E(X) \ne \sqrt{E(X^2)}##. But, if you do the full calculation for a Gaussian distribution of velocities, then ##E(v_r) = \sqrt 2 E(v)##.
 
  • Informative
Likes   Reactions: Charles Link

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
661
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
5K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
6K