Encyclopedia > Talk:Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution

  Article Content

Talk:Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution

The way it is presented at first it seems to refer to the general Boltzmann distribution? - then it can be used for any, arbitrarily strongly interacting system, as long as the subsystem considered is large enough. user:FlorianMarquardt


Equation (7) in the article looks positively wrong. The author states Substituting Equation 6 into Equation 4 and using p_i=mv_i for each component of momentum gives:

<math>
f_p (p_x, p_y, p_x) = \left( \frac{\pi mkT}{2} \right) ^ {3/2} \exp \left[ \frac{-m}{2kT(v_x^2 + v_y^2 + v_z^2)} \right] </math> (7)

Equation 4:

<math>
f_p (p_x, p_y, p_x) = cq^{-1} \exp \left[ \frac{-1}{2mkT(p_x^2 + p_y^2 + p_z^2)} \right] </math> (4)

Equation 6:

<math>
c = q (2 \pi mkT)^{3/2} </math> (6)

If I perform the act of substituting 6 into 4 and substituting p_i=mv_i I get:

<math>
f_p (p_x, p_y, p_x) = ( 2 \pi mkT ) ^ {3/2} \exp \left[ \frac{-1}{2kT(mv_x^2 + mv_y^2 + mv_z^2)} \right] </math>

Please comment. --snoyes 22:17 Mar 9, 2003 (UTC)

You haven't texified (6) correctly. It's supposed to be

<math>
c = q (2 \pi mkT)^{-3/2} </math>

not

<math>
c = q (2 \pi mkT)^{3/2} </math>

-- Derek Ross 22:56 Mar 9, 2003 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for pointing that out ! I really must be more careful. But what about the second part of (7), where one substitutes p_i = mv_i ? --snoyes 23:03 Mar 9, 2003 (UTC)

I'm still lookin at it but I think the (4) is wrongly texified too. It makes much more sense if the sum of p's is on top of the fraction. But I'm just doing a little research to ensure that that's the right thing to do. -- Derek Ross

Which would mean that (3) is also wrongly texified. The problem is that:

exp[-1/2mkT(px2 + py2 + pz2)]

is just so damn interpretable. That is partly the reason I'm going to all the trouble of texifying all these articles; To disambiguate them. --snoyes 23:21 Mar 9, 2003 (UTC)

Yep, (3) should be

exp[-(px2 + py2 + pz2)/(2mkT)]

and the others should changed analogously. -- Derek Ross

Excellent. However, there remain problems with (7); it would now have to be:

<math>
f_p (p_x, p_y, p_x) = ( 2 \pi mkT) ^ {-3/2} \exp \left[ \frac{-(v_x^2 + v_y^2 + v_z^2)}{2kT} \right] </math> (7)

(ie. the ms cancel and the stuff in the first bracket is all to the power ^(-3/2)) ? --snoyes 23:42 Mar 9, 2003 (UTC)

And why is cq^(-1) not written as (c/q) in (4) ? (style?)--snoyes 23:44 Mar 9, 2003 (UTC)
Yep, style. They both mean the same thing. -- Derek Ross

Substituting p2 with p=mv gives m2v2. You can then pull all the m2's out with the distributive law and cancel the m in the denominator leaving an m in the numerator which is what you want.

As for the other point ...

<math>
( 2 \pi mkT) ^ {-3/2} = (1 / 2 \pi mkT) ^ {3/2} </math>

... so there's no problem there, just a matter of personal taste about how you want to write the formula. -- Derek Ross 23:52 Mar 9, 2003 (UTC)

I stand corrected again, thank you Derek. As for the personal taste, I don't care which one - do you have a personal preference? I shall use that. --snoyes 23:57 Mar 9, 2003 (UTC)

Some people get confused by the q-n notation. I think that it's often a better idea to change it to 1/(qn) instead. Also I would separate out the relatively constant parts to make something like... well if I knew Tex I would do it myself. Sadly I don't. Guess I'll have to learn ! -- Derek Ross

I learnt it in a couple of hours solely for changeing all the stuff on wikipedia ;-) --snoyes 00:08 Mar 10, 2003 (UTC)

One thing I would like. exp[x] is actually supposed to be ex. It would be nice if you could change that -- Derek Ross

Hmm, unfortunately it looks like this:
<math>
e^{\left( \frac{-(p_x^2 + p_y^2 + p_z^2)}{2mkT} \right)} </math>--snoyes 00:27 Mar 10, 2003 (UTC)

Too bad, exp it will have to be then. -- Derek Ross

I see someone has learnt some tex. ;-) Couple of small things with (8). Corrected it is:

<math>
f_v (v_x, v_y, v_z) = \left( \frac{m}{2 \pi kT} \right) ^ {3/2} \exp \left[ \frac{-m(v_x^2 + v_y^2 + v_z^2)}{2kT} \right] </math> (8) --snoyes 05:34 Mar 10, 2003 (UTC)

Not at all, just monkey see, monkey do, plus good ole cut'n'paste -- hence the mistakes. One other change which I think needs making is that the integral signs should actually be partial integral signs and likewise the differentiation operators should be partial differentiation operators but as I said, if only I knew Tex... -- Derek Ross



All Wikipedia text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License

 
  Search Encyclopedia

Search over one million articles, find something about almost anything!
 
 
  
  Featured Article
Reformed churches

... churches Continental Reformed churches Hungarian Reformed Church[?] The largest branch of the Reformed movement, and the only one of the national Reformed ...

 
 
 
This page was created in 34.2 ms