Stat mech: probability density - 2 interacting particles

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on deriving the probability density function for two interacting particles based on their separation, r, using statistical mechanics principles. The key equation presented is $$\rho(r) = Cr^2e^{-\beta U(r)}$$, where U(r) represents the potential energy dependent on separation. Participants explore the transition to spherical coordinates and the implications of the Dirac delta function in the context of configurational integrals. There is a clarification that the delta function is one-dimensional, as it pertains to the magnitude of separation, and the integration should account for the geometry of the problem. The conversation emphasizes the importance of correctly handling coordinate transformations and the Jacobian in the integration process.
sltungle
Messages
26
Reaction score
0
1. The problem statement, all
variables and given/known data

Show that the probability density as a function of seperation, r, of two atoms interacting via a potential U(r) (e.g. a function of separation only, such as a Coulombic interaction), is given by

$$\rho(r) = Cr^2e^{-\beta U(r)}$$

where C is some constant. For simplicity consider just 2 atoms in 3D and discard all other atoms.

Hint: Start by writing down the probability density of r in terms of configurational integrals for the two atoms,

$$\rho(r) = \dfrac{\int dq_{1}^3\int dq_{2}^3\delta(|{\bf{q_2}}-{\bf{q_2}}| - r)e^{-\beta U({\bf{q_2}},{\bf{q_2}})}}{Z_2}$$

and change coordinate systems so that one atom is at the origin and the second is at some relative position vector, then convert to spherical coordinates.

Homework Equations



The Attempt at a Solution


[/B]
Setting particle 1 to be at the origin the distance given by $$|{\bf{q_2}}-{\bf{q_2}}|$$ is just given by the position of particle two, which I'm just calling $${\bf{q^{\prime}_{2}}}$$ for the time being, so:

$$\delta({|\bf{q^{\prime}_{2}}}| - r)$$

Which if I'm not mistaken should look something similar to (I feel that r was a poor choice of notation to use prior to having us swap to spherical polar, but whatever),

$$\delta(x_2 - r_x)\delta(y_2 - r_y)\delta(z_2 - r_z)$$

The potential energy now also only becomes a function of the separation of the two particles, that is to say:

$$e^{-\beta U({\bf{q_2}},{\bf{q_2}})} = e^{-\beta U({|\bf{q^{\prime}_{2}}}|)} = e^{-\beta U({q^{\prime}_{2}})}$$

Converting the Dirac Delta function to spherical polar coordinates, I'm led to believe (my physics degree was shockingly sparse on mathematics courses so I'm somewhat ignorant on a lot of the formalism behind these kinds of things, I apologise; I'm slowly but surely trying to make amends for that), requires one to divide by the Jacobian, that is the above becomes:

$$\dfrac{1}{|J|}\delta(r_2 - r)\delta(\theta_2 - \theta)\delta(\phi_2 - \phi)$$

Or

$$\dfrac{1}{r_2^2sin(\theta_2)}\delta(r_2 - r)\delta(\theta_2 - \theta)\delta(\phi_2 - \phi)$$

Where now 'r' on its own is literally just the radial separation of the two particles. Converting the infinitesimal volume element to spherical polar also picks me up a Jacobian term:

$$dq_{1}^3 = dx_1dy_1dz_1 = |J|dr_1d\theta_1 d\phi_1 = r_1^2sin(\theta_1)dr_1d\theta_1 d\phi_1$$

(And the same for particle 2 with a 2 in place of the subscript 1 of course)

However when I substitute this all back into the original equation I don't quite see where I'm going to pick up my r^2 term from.

$$\rho(r) = \dfrac{1}{Z_2}\int r_1^2sin(\theta_1)dr_1d\theta_1 d\phi_1 \int dr_2d\theta_2 d\phi_2 \delta(r_2 - r)\delta(\theta_2 - \theta)\delta(\phi_2 - \phi)e^{-\beta U(r_2)}$$

Assuming I've done everything right (which I've probably not or I'd have the right answer unless something in the following line of reasoning is incorrect) the only remaining term of interest in the second integral would be the exponential term in which the distance 'r' would be picked out from the delta function. $$e^{-\beta U(r)}$$ The first integral would yield $$4\pi$$ over the angular variables, however I'm still missing an r^2 term. Even if I could integrate over $$dr_1$$ (which I can't because the radius can be infinitely large) I'd still pick up an extra power in r that I don't want. The only way I can see this working is if the delta function didn't pick up a Jacobian term because then I'd still have an $$r{_2}^2$$ term in the second integral which when evaluated with the delta function would come out to be r^2 (although if the Jacobians didn't cancel out then I'd also have a surviving angular term which doesn't particularly make much sense as the potential cares not for the angle).

It's late, and I'm unsure where to proceed from here, so I'm probably going to give in for the night. I'm not expecting the answer, but some guidance would be much appreciated (my professor is away sick at the moment, so the internet will have to suffice for now!).
 
Physics news on Phys.org
sltungle said:
Which if I'm not mistaken should look something similar to
You are mistaken here. This is a one dimensional delta function, not a three dimensional one.
 
Orodruin said:
You are mistaken here. This is a one dimensional delta function, not a three dimensional one.
Is this because the argument of the delta function is the magnitude of separation which is the same regardless of coordinate system? That was my first attempt to solve the problem about 3 day ago but one of the other professors told me he was concerned that I hadn't treated my change of coordinate systems properly in terms of the delta function.
 
It is a one-dimensional delta because you are only interested in integrating over it in the region where the distance between the particles is r. Taking away the CoM motion, this is a sphere and so you need to integrate over the sphere's surface, which is two-dimensional - thereby reducing the three dimensional integral to a two-dimensional one.

A more straight forward way is to simply not introduce the delta and see what the distribution function becomes when you leave only the r integral.
 
Ah, of course! Thank you very much for the help :)
 
Thread 'Help with Time-Independent Perturbation Theory "Good" States Proof'
(Disclaimer: this is not a HW question. I am self-studying, and this felt like the type of question I've seen in this forum. If there is somewhere better for me to share this doubt, please let me know and I'll transfer it right away.) I am currently reviewing Chapter 7 of Introduction to QM by Griffiths. I have been stuck for an hour or so trying to understand the last paragraph of this proof (pls check the attached file). It claims that we can express Ψ_{γ}(0) as a linear combination of...
Back
Top