Volume of velocity-space in Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter strauser
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Distribution Volume
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the role of the volume of velocity space in deriving the Maxwell-Boltzmann speed distribution, exploring the relationship between the velocity distribution and the Boltzmann distribution. Participants examine the implications of these distributions on the presence of particles at low velocities and the concept of density of states.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express confusion regarding the implications of the Maxwell-Boltzmann speed distribution, particularly the assertion that no particles exist at zero speed due to the lack of available velocity space.
  • Others argue that while the Boltzmann distribution indicates a higher probability of finding particles at lower energy states, the density of states suggests that there are more available states at higher speeds, leading to a most likely speed greater than zero.
  • A participant questions the origin of the density of states concept, seeking clarity on whether it is derived from classical or quantum mechanics.
  • Some contributions highlight the mathematical formulation of the density of states in momentum space and its relation to velocity space, noting that the density is proportional to ##v^2 \, dv##.
  • Participants discuss the need to analyze systems within the framework of the canonical ensemble and the importance of identifying the number of available states for each energy level.
  • There is mention of the potential confusion arising from different treatments of phase space in classical versus quantum contexts, with a participant noting the lack of clarity in some educational resources.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the implications of the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution versus the Boltzmann distribution, with multiple competing views remaining regarding the interpretation of low-speed states and the density of states.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the relationship between the density of states and the Boltzmann distribution may not be straightforward, and there are unresolved questions regarding the independence of the density of states from the Boltzmann exponential term.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to those studying statistical mechanics, particularly in understanding the nuances of the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution and the Boltzmann distribution in the context of velocity and energy states.

strauser
Messages
37
Reaction score
5
I'm having trouble understanding the role of the volume of velocity space when deriving the Maxwell-Boltzmann speed distribution.

1. If we wish to compute the speed distribution from the velocity distribution we work with, say, p(v) dv \propto v^2e^{-av^2} dv where the ##v^2 dv## comes from considering the volume of velocity space available to the states with speeds in ##[v, v+dv]##. This makes sense, at least mathematically. However ..

2. This distribution seems to say that, if we consider the states close to ##v=0##, we will find no particles with speed 0 (and not many close by), as there is no volume space available to them there (and this appears to be independent of the underlying Boltzmann distribution itself, since ##v^2 f(v) \to 0## as ##v \to 0## for any physically realistic ##f(v)##)

3. But this seems to clash with what the Boltzmann distribution predicts: the probability of finding a particle in a microstate of 0 energy (hence 0 velocity) is greater than finding it with any other energy since the probability of it being in a microstate ##r##, energy ##E_r## is ##p(r) \propto e^{E_r/kT}##.

So I'm confused. The Boltzmann distribution seems to predict that we will often find gas particles with 0 velocity. But the Maxwell-Boltzmann speed distribution seems to say that we will find *no* particles with 0 speed (##\Leftrightarrow## 0 velocity), since there is no velocity space available to them.

Can anyone clear up my confusion?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The Boltzmann distribution tells you the relative probability of each state being occupied, but it doesn't tell you how many states are available. There are more states with higher speed than lower speed, so even though the relative probability of any of those states being filled is lower, the most likely speed is higher than 0. The number of available states with speed ##|v|## is proportional to ##v^2##.

If you had weighted dice which had twice as much chance of rolling 1 as the other sides, the most likely roll of 5 dice is obviously going to be ##(1,1,1,1,1)##, but the most likely sum is not 5.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: nasu
Khashishi said:
The Boltzmann distribution tells you the relative probability of each state being occupied, but it doesn't tell you how many states are available. There are more states with higher speed than lower speed, so even though the relative probability of any of those states being filled is lower, the most likely speed is higher than 0. The number of available states with speed ##|v|## is proportional to ##v^2##.

Thanks. However, I don't think that you are doing any more than restating in words what I described more mathematically in the OP. And I'm not really confused about it from the POV of the probability argument - it's the physical intuition that I'm lacking.

Having thought about the question some more, however, I think part of my problem is that:

a) I'm not precisely sure where the "density of states" arguments really come from. (I'm not entirely sure if it's a classical or QM based thing)

b) I'm not clear to what extent the "density of states" term i.e. the ##v^2 dv## term is independent of the Boltzmann exponential term. AFAICS the argument that gives the M-B speed distribution would rule out *any* physical system having a large number of states with low energy since the volume of available phase space ##\to 0## as ##E \to 0## - that surely can't be right though?

In short, I need to go away and think some more about precisely what I don't understand, as I can't really articulate it to myself yet.
 
One item that you might find of use is that the density of states, i.e. the number of states ## \Delta N ## in an interval (of momentum or velocity space), is usually expressed in momentum space or k-space. In momentum space, the density is given by ## \Delta N=V \Delta^3 p/h^3 ##. This is derived by setting up periodic boundaries so that ## \exp^{ik_x x}=\exp^{ik_x (x+L_x)} ##. The result is ## L_x=(2 \pi) n_x ## where ## n_x ## is an integer, and similarly for ## L_y ## and ## L_z ##. ## \Delta^3 p ## with spherical symmetry in p-space can be written as ## 4 \pi p^2 \, dp ## where the ## p ## is now the magnitude of the momentum. This magnitude of momentum is proportional to the speed ## v ## in the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution, so that the ## \Delta N ## can also be expressed as a function of ## v^2 \, dv ##.
 
Charles Link said:
One item that you might find of use is that the density of states, i.e. the number of states ## \Delta N ## in an interval (of momentum or velocity space), is usually expressed in momentum space or k-space. In momentum space, the density is given by ## \Delta N=V \Delta^3 p/h^3 ##. This is derived by setting up periodic boundaries so that ## \exp^{ik_x x}=\exp^{ik_x (x+L_x)} ##. The result is ## L_x=(2 \pi) n_x ## where ## n_x ## is an integer, and similarly for ## L_y ## and ## L_z ##. ## \Delta^3 p ## with spherical symmetry in p-space can be written as ## 4 \pi p^2 \, dp ## where the ## p ## is now the magnitude of the momentum. This magnitude of momentum is proportional to the speed ## v ## in the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution, so that the ## \Delta N ## can also be expressed as a function of ## v^2 \, dv ##.

Thanks. It's not clear from your post but I'm guessing that the periodicity that you mention is essentially the QM "states of particle in a box" argument. If so, I'm familiar with it, and have seen derivations (e.g. in Mandl) but part of my confusion is that many treatments seem to play fast and loose with some classical stat. mech. "volume of phase space" arguments here, when really the whole thing should be quantum, AFAICS - and they don't really make it clear what they're doing (to my mind, at least). Mandl does in fact discuss precisely this matter, but I've yet to get a chance to read it properly. I'm leaving this question for now anyway, till I can pursue it in more detail.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Charles Link
I think that this is clearer in my mind now:

For any physical system, we need to do three things:

1. Decide if it is described by the canonical ensemble. To do that, we need to identify a constant T heat bath, and the "system" in contact with said heat bath. (This may be subtle e.g. the "system" may be one molecule in a gas at constant T). Once we've done that, we know that for any state/energy of state ##r, E_r##, we have ##p(r) \propto e^{-\beta E_r}## but there may be *many* states with this energy, say ##n(E_r)## for a discrete set of states.

2. We now need to analyse the system from a different POV and we have to find the number of available states per ##E_r## (This is ##n(E_r)##). This depends entirely on the physical characteristics of the system.

3. If we then want to find p(system has energy ##E_r##), we bear in mind that each state is disjoint i.e. the system can only be in one state at a time. Hence, we have ##p(E_r) \propto n(E_r)e^{-\beta E_r}## (from basic probability theory). (Modify in the obvious way for continuous states).

So, any decent book, in analysing systems, should make these first two steps clear. However, it seems (to my mind) that many don't, and often, if there is only one state per energy (e.g. system of paramagnetic dipoles) then it is not mentioned at all. I find this confusing and, when a proper analysis isn't done, then assumptions, maybe obvious to the author but not to the reader, can be hidden.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Charles Link
Looks like you have much of it figured out. F. Reif is pretty good reading for Statistical Physics. I think his treatment of the Boltzmann factor is quite good and very worthwhile reading.
 
Charles Link said:
Looks like you have much of it figured out. F. Reif is pretty good reading for Statistical Physics. I think his treatment of the Boltzmann factor is quite good and very worthwhile reading.
Yes, I've heard Reif praised elsewhere - it seems only to be available these days in some very expensive version, or via Indian publishers. Has it fallen out of fashion?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
999
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
1K