1) Suppose the state of the system is determined by the variables $P_1, \ldots, P_n$ and let there be a sub-system, determined by the variables $p_1, \ldots, p_n$, which belongs to $P_1,\ldots, P_n$ but the energy of the whole system be divided into two parts -- one, energy $E$, which only depends on $p_1, \ldots, p_m$, while the rest is independent of $p_1,\ldots, p_m$. The rest of symbols have their usual meaning. Then, the question is, why is it that the probability $dW$ for anyone of these $p_i$'s to be within the region $dp_1\ldots dp_m$ should be given by $$dW = C e^{-\frac{E}{kT}}~ dp_1 \ldots dp_m. \tag 1$$ Isn't the energy $E$ the function of these $p_1,\ldots,p_m$ and, therefore, isn't also their change determining the $E$ and not vice versa? How is then the probability of the $p_1,\ldots, p_m$ being in the region $dp_1 \ldots dp_m$ determined by $E$? It must be somehow the opposite; that is, $E$ is determined by $dp_1 \ldots dp_m$?

2) Now, once this is understood, the question arises where this integral comes from $$\int_{dE} dp_1 \ldots dp_m = \omega(E)~dE.$$ The function $\omega(E)$ has the appearance of probability density but how exactly that whole thing came about, let alone that it caused the substitution in eq.(1) of $dp_1 ... dp_m$ by $$\omega(E)~dE:~ dW = C e^{-\frac{E}{kT}} \omega(E)~dE.\tag 2$$

3) If now one observes a linear harmonic oscillator, whose coordinates are wrt center of mass, then eq.(2) is written as $$dW = C e^{-\frac{E}{kT}}~ dx~ dv,\tag 3$$ where $x$ and $v$ are, resp., the coordinate and the velocity. Where does eq.(3) follow from, especially, when it is claimed that $\int{dx~dv} = \textrm{const}$, claiming further that this yields $\omega = \textrm{const}$, having in mind that, obviously, $E = ax^2 + bv^2$. So, that whole thing leads to $$dW = \textrm{const} \cdot e^{-\frac{E}{kT}}~dE.$$ How did this come about?

4) And, finally, it is claimed that $$\frac{{\displaystyle \int E e^{-\frac{E}{kT}}}~dE}{\displaystyle \int e^{-\frac{E}{kT}}~dE} = kT = \bar{E},$$ however, my best efforts to solve that quotient yield $E + kT$ and not just $kT$, let alone that the meaning of the quotient isn't quite clear. Can someone shed some light on these points? Thanks.

NOTE: Regarding point 1): Maybe the meaning of the probability $dW = C e^{-\frac{E}{kT}} dp_1 \ldots dp_m$ can be understood by considering that while, indeed, as defined, $E$ is a function of all $p_1 \ldots p_m$ (but not of their differentials $dp_1 \ldots dp_m$), a given $E_1$ may be the result of only the change of one of these $p_i$'s, the rest remaining the same, unchanged. Of course, such $E_1 = E_1(p_1 + dp_1 \ldots p_m)$ will differ from $E_m = E_m(dp_1 \ldots dp_m)$ and, therefore, if we write the whole set $dp_1 \ldots dp_m$ of differentials of these variables, then, if $E_1$ is our concern, the probability of all the $p_i's$ (determining $E_1$) to reside within $dp_1 \ldots dp_m$ will be $dW = C e^{-\frac{E_1}{kT}} dp_1 \ldots dp_m$; that is, there will be zero probability for any of the $p_i's$ to be within $dp_1 \ldots dp_m$, except for $dp_1$.



Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.