Vector calculus eq. needs translation

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around a vector calculus equation from "Statistical Mechanics" by Pathria, specifically focusing on an integral involving two vectors and a function of their difference. The original poster is attempting to decipher the mathematical rigor behind the transformation of variables and the integration process.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss a change of variables to simplify the integral, questioning how to handle the differential elements and the function g. There is uncertainty about the limits of integration and the nature of the function g in relation to the vectors involved.

Discussion Status

The conversation is ongoing, with participants providing insights into the transformation of variables and the implications for the integral. Some guidance has been offered regarding the Jacobian matrix for changing variables, but there remains a lack of consensus on the correct interpretation and application of these concepts.

Contextual Notes

There is mention of missing explicit definitions for the function g and the need for clarity on the integration limits. Participants are also navigating the complexities of vector calculus without a definitive reference text at hand.

Goddar
Messages
202
Reaction score
16

Homework Statement


Hi, this is not part of a problem but just an equation I'm having a hard time to decipher (for the reference the original one is in "Statistical Mechanics" by Pathria, eq. 3.7.16)
We define: r = |r2r1|,
Where bold letters are vectors, and we basically integrate a function of 2 vectors over a volume V. So here's the beast:
[tex]\int[/tex][tex]\int[/tex]g(r2r1)dr1dr2=V[tex]\int[/tex]g(r)(4[tex]\pi[/tex]r2dr

(the integral on the right side runs now from 0 to [tex]\pi[/tex]. Sorry the pi's shouldn't appear like raised powers)
I understand the idea, roughly, but can't make the math rigorous: mainly, i don't know what to do with dr1dr2 to obtain the right side...
Thanks for helping
 
Physics news on Phys.org
He's made a change of variables to [tex]\mathbf{R} = \mathbf{r}_1+\mathbf{r}_2[/tex] and [tex]\mathbf{r} = \mathbf{r}_2-\mathbf{r}_1[/tex]. I don't have the text, but presumably [tex]g[/tex] is a function of [tex]| \mathbf{r}_2-\mathbf{r}_1|[/tex] only. However I believe that the integral on the RHS must still vary from [tex]0[/tex] to [tex]\infty[/tex].
 
The RHS integral is indeed from 0 to infinity, my mistake.. But g is a function of r2r1 so while a scalar, it's a function of a vector (the vector-difference of the r's).
As defined here however, r is not a vector but the scalar |r2r1|.
If i define a vector R = r2+r1,
for instance, i can express the integral as:
[tex]\int[/tex][tex]\int[/tex]g(r2r1)(dRdr1)dr1
But i still can't see how to fill the gap...
 
Goddar said:
The RHS integral is indeed from 0 to infinity, my mistake.. But g is a function of r2r1 so while a scalar, it's a function of a vector (the vector-difference of the r's).
As defined here however, r is not a vector but the scalar |r2r1|.
If i define a vector R = r2+r1,
for instance, i can express the integral as:
[tex]\int[/tex][tex]\int[/tex]g(r2r1)(dRdr1)dr1
But i still can't see how to fill the gap...

If we change variables to

[tex] \mathbf{R} = \mathbf{r}_1+\mathbf{r}_2, \mathbf{r} = \mathbf{r}_2-\mathbf{r}_1,[/tex]

then

[tex]d\mathbf{r}_1d\mathbf{r}_2 = d\mathbf{R} d\mathbf{r}.[/tex]

I don't have the book handy, so you might want to define [tex]g[/tex] if you need help getting further along.
 
g is not given explicitly, it's kept general as a function of r. But i think your answer is precisely where I'm lost:
it seems like dRdr should be the equivalent of (dr1)2–(dr2)2 to me...
component-wise, i can't seem to make sense of these expressions. Then if you're right, the integration over dR should yield a factor of V and switching from dr to dr would give the integrand a factor of 4πr and send the limit of integration to infinity?
 
Goddar said:
g is not given explicitly, it's kept general as a function of r. But i think your answer is precisely where I'm lost:
it seems like dRdr should be the equivalent of (dr1)2–(dr2)2 to me...
component-wise, i can't seem to make sense of these expressions.

You might want to read up on the Jacobian matrix, since that's the correct way to compute the new measure after a change of variables. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobian_matrix_and_determinant

Then if you're right, the integration over dR should yield a factor of V and switching from dr to dr would give the integrand a factor of 4πr and send the limit of integration to infinity?

Yes.
 

Similar threads

Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
10K