12
$\begingroup$

My professor in kinetic gas theory said that when considering the Boltzmann Transport Equation (BCE) $$ \partial_tf + \frac{\vec{p}}{m}\cdot\nabla_{\vec{q}}f + \vec{F}\cdot\nabla_{\vec{p}}f = (\partial_tf)_{Coll} $$ Over long periods of time, the system tends to relax, which makes the distribution $f$ homogenous ($\nabla_{\vec{q}}f$ = 0) and time independent ($\partial_tf = 0$). This means that the system tends to return to equilibrium, which makes sense to me. However, my prof. said that the momentum term does not relax. I.e. $\nabla_{\vec{p}}f \neq 0$ even if the system is in equilibrium.

Why is that so? I would have thought that for a system in equilibrium the particles should have similar velocities and thus similar momentums to have a homogenous distribution of energy. Moreover, if we're only considering particle collisions as interaction term the momentum should remain constant.

$\endgroup$
2
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Related: physics.stackexchange.com/a/489909/226902 and physics.stackexchange.com/q/601296/226902. $\endgroup$
    – Quillo
    Commented Jun 28, 2023 at 23:31
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ "Relaxed $f$" just means $\partial_t f=0$. Depending on the system at hand, this time-independent $f$ can depend on $p$ and/or $q$. Also, the relaxed $f$ may not be unique (therefore, the exact relaxed $f$ may depend on the initial conditions). When $F=0$ and the system is spatially homogeneous, the relaxed state is $0=\partial_t f |_{coll}$, and this is realized by some $f(p)$ (Max.-Boltz. distribution for classical binary elastic collisions). In a collisionless gas, any $f(p)$ could be a "relaxed" distribution (the one that is realized depends on the initial preparation). $\endgroup$
    – Quillo
    Commented Jul 31, 2023 at 15:05

2 Answers 2

10
$\begingroup$

If uniform distribution is promised as equilibrium, it means the zero external force $\mathbf{F}$, which means that the $\nabla_\mathbf{p}f$ can have any value. without violating the equation.

As an example, let us consider Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution: $$ f(\mathbf{p},\mathbf{q})=Z^{-1}e^{-\beta\left(\frac{\mathbf{p}^2}{2m}+U(\mathbf{q})\right)},\text{ where }\beta=\frac{1}{k_BT}. $$ This distribution turns to zero the collision integral (how exactly depends on the form of the integral used, see, e.g., these notes suggested by @Quillo), it is independent on time, i.e., $\partial_t f=0$, whereas the gradients are: $$ \nabla_\mathbf{q}f=-\beta f \nabla_\mathbf{q}U = \beta \mathbf{F} f,\\ \nabla_\mathbf{p}f=-\beta\frac{\mathbf{p}}{m}f, $$ that is the sum of the two gradient term is zero. The density distribution under this distribution is not uniform, unless the potential is a constant, in which the distribution becomes Maxwell distribution $$ f(\mathbf{p})=Z^{-1}e^{-\beta\frac{\mathbf{p}^2}{2m}}, $$ that gives a non-zero gradient $\nabla_\mathbf{p}f=-\beta\frac{\mathbf{p}}{m}f$, but still satisfies the Boltzmann equation, since now $\mathbf{F}=-\nabla_\mathbf{q}U=0$.

$\endgroup$
1
6
$\begingroup$

Having $f$ independent of $t$ means that the distribution is similar at different times; having $f$ independent on $\vec{q}$ means that particles at different positions have similar distribution.

Similarly, having $f$ independent of $\vec{p}$ means that particles with different momenta distribute similarly. But we know that this is not the case at equilibrium. Higher energy states are less probable as $p \propto \exp(-E/k_B T)$. Also the density of states is momentum dependent, meaning that different $\vec{p}$ have more or less states available to populate. Having $\nabla_\vec{p} f = 0$ means that all these features are irrelevant, and a particle has the same probability to be in each value of $\vec{p}$ just as likely. This is not the case in equilibrium.

$\endgroup$
2
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Of course, the equilibrium condition makes the momentum distribution localized around a value of p. Thank you for your answer! $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 16, 2023 at 11:34
  • $\begingroup$ @Tomas Noguera why do you think that there is localization around a certain momentum? $\endgroup$
    – Quillo
    Commented Jan 16, 2023 at 12:26

Your Answer

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

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