1
$\begingroup$

The format of the 3 dimensional MB distribution is $A \cdot e^{-\frac{E}{k_BT}} \cdot g(E)$ in which $A$ can be derived using normalization (integration up to $\infty$ must be 1) and $g(E)$ being the degeneracy according to $g(E)=\frac{V\pi \cdot 2^{2.5}m^{1.5}}{h^3}$

The 3 dimensional average kinetic energy $\bar E$ of a particles system can then be calculated by multiplying this MB distribution with $E$ and integrating it over infinity, which yields: $$\bar E = \int_0^{\infty} \frac{2}{\sqrt \pi} \cdot (\frac{1}{k_BT})^{\frac{3}{2}} \cdot e^{-\frac{E}{k_BT}} \cdot \sqrt{E} \cdot E \cdot dE = \frac{3}{2}k_BT$$

The format for the 1 dimensional MB distribution (e.g. the x-coordinate) is $A\cdot e^{-\frac{E_x}{k_BT}}$ where $A$ is derived by normalizing the integration to 1, which gives $A= \frac{1}{k_BT}$ When calculating the 1 dimensional average energy $\bar E_x$, this MB distribution should also be multiplied by the energy $E_x$ and integrated up to $\infty$ which gives: $$\bar E_x=\int^{\infty}_0 \frac{1}{k_BT}\cdot e^{-\frac{E_x}{k_BT}}\cdot E_x\cdot dE = k_BT$$ But this should be $\frac{1}{2}k_BT$ instead. The peculiar thing is that when writing $E_x$ in terms of $\frac{1}{2}mv_x^2$ within the formula $A\cdot e^{-\frac{E_x}{k_BT}}$, normalizing $A$ to that, multiplying the formula with $\frac{1}{2}mv_x^2$ and integrating it up to $\infty$, then one would indeed get $\frac{1}{2}k_BT$. $$\int^{\infty}_0\frac{\sqrt{2m}}{\sqrt{\pi k_BT}}\cdot e^{-\frac{mv_x^2}{2k_BT}}\cdot \frac{1}{2}mv_x^2 \cdot dv=\frac{1}{2}k_BT$$ But it wasn't necessary for the 3 dimensional MB distribution to write the format down in terms of $v$ to get the correct average kinetic energy.

Why does the 1 dimensional MB distribution in terms of $E_x$ give an incorrect average energy and how would one realise that this is the wrong way to do it?

$\endgroup$
0
$\begingroup$

If I'm not mistaken, the degeneracy factor for the one-dimensional case is $g(E)=2$, since two free particles moving with the same speed but opposite directions ($-\hat{\mathbf{x}}$ and $\hat{\mathbf{x}}$) have the same kinetic energy.
In that case, the normalizing factor $A$ would be $1/(2k_B T)$ and you would obtain your desired result.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I don't understand why the factor 2 should be in the denominator instead of the numerator. If there's a degeneracy of 2, shouldn't the formula be multiplied by 2 instead of a half? $\endgroup$ – JohnnyGui Jul 28 at 22:58
  • $\begingroup$ You multiply first as in your first equation: $2A \exp{[-E/(k_B T)]}$, then normalize to obtain $A$. It follows that $A=1/(2k_B T)$. $\endgroup$ – Lith Jul 29 at 22:12
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks. This makes me think though, why isn't it necessary to take into account the different directions for the 3 dimensional formula $A \cdot e^{-\frac{E}{k_BT}} \cdot g(E)$? From what I understand, the degeneracy $g(E)$ only takes into account the different combination values of $E_x$, $E_y$ and $E_z$ that give the same sum, but not the $2$ different possible directions of each of them, which should be $8$ as a total (2 for each of the 3 degrees of freedom) $\endgroup$ – JohnnyGui Jul 29 at 22:20
  • $\begingroup$ Also, I noticed something regarding the multiplication with $2$ because of the two opposite directions. If there are two directions, then the 1D distribution should be $2A \cdot e^{-\frac{E}{k_BT}}$ and normalizing would give indeed $A= 1/(2k_BT)$. The formula would then be $2 \cdot \frac{1}{2k_BT} \cdot e^{-\frac{E}{k_BT}}$. But this simplifies again to $\frac{1}{k_BT} \cdot e^{-\frac{E}{k_BT}}$. $\endgroup$ – JohnnyGui Jul 30 at 0:03
  • $\begingroup$ Yeah, I noticed yesterday my answer is probably wrong (sorry about that). Now I'm at work but I will try to study this later today! $\endgroup$ – Lith Jul 30 at 8:53

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.