<?xml version="1.0"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xml:lang="en">
	<id>http://www.sklogwiki.org/SklogWiki/api.php?action=feedcontributions&amp;feedformat=atom&amp;user=91.76.179.246</id>
	<title>SklogWiki - User contributions [en]</title>
	<link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.sklogwiki.org/SklogWiki/api.php?action=feedcontributions&amp;feedformat=atom&amp;user=91.76.179.246"/>
	<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.sklogwiki.org/SklogWiki/index.php/Special:Contributions/91.76.179.246"/>
	<updated>2026-04-30T22:05:09Z</updated>
	<subtitle>User contributions</subtitle>
	<generator>MediaWiki 1.41.0</generator>
	<entry>
		<id>http://www.sklogwiki.org/SklogWiki/index.php?title=Talk:Capillary_waves&amp;diff=7690</id>
		<title>Talk:Capillary waves</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.sklogwiki.org/SklogWiki/index.php?title=Talk:Capillary_waves&amp;diff=7690"/>
		<updated>2009-02-03T14:29:32Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;91.76.179.246: /* A quick comment */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;==Thermal capillary waves==&lt;br /&gt;
Hello, now I&#039;m writing the same article for [http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A2%D0%B5%D0%BF%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%8B%D0%B5_%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%BF%D0%B8%D0%BB%D0%BB%D1%8F%D1%80%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B5_%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BD%D1%8B Russian wikipedia]. While I was deducing the expression for mean square amplitude I found my result to be two times less than common one (that is in [http://books.google.com/books?id=_ydSF_XUVeEC&amp;amp;printsec=frontcover&amp;amp;hl=ru#PPA115,M1 Molecular Theory of Capillarity] and refered to in many articles). Could you please tell me weather I am right or not.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I claim that the mean energy of each mode is &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;k_B T&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; rather than &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\frac{1}{2} k_B T&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. That&#039;s because each mode has to degrees of freedom &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;A_{mn}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;B_{mn}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, since each wave is &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;A_{mn} \cos(\frac{2\pi}{L}mx+\frac{2\pi}{L}ny) + B_{mn} \sin(\frac{2\pi}{L}mx+\frac{2\pi}{L}ny)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, with the energy of each mode proportional to &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;A_{mn}^2+B_{mn}^2&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. This obviously lead to the mean energy of each mode to be &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;k_B T&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. That was the real notation and now lets turn to the complex notation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Each mode with the fixed wave vector is presented as &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;h_\mathbf{k} \exp(i \; \mathbf{k} \cdot \boldsymbol{\tau})&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\mathbf{k}=(\frac{2 \pi}{L}m, \frac{2 \pi}{L}n), \; m,n \in \mathbb{Z}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; — wave vector, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\boldsymbol{\tau}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; — &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;(x,y)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; vector. The energy is proportional to &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;h_\mathbf{k}^*h_\mathbf{k}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; (indeed it is &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_\mathbf{k}=\frac{\sigma L^2}{2} \left( \frac{2}{a_c^2} + \mathbf{k}^2 \right) h^*_\mathbf{k} h_\mathbf{k}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;). According to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equipartition equipartition]:&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
\left \langle x_i \frac{\partial H}{\partial x_j} \right \rangle = \delta_{ij}  k_B T,&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
we obtain:&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
\left \langle h_\mathbf{k} \, \frac{\partial}{\partial h_\mathbf{k}} \left[ \frac{\sigma L^2}{2} \left( \frac{2}{a_c^2} + \mathbf{k}^2 \right) h^*_\mathbf{k} h_\mathbf{k} \right] \right \rangle = \left \langle h_\mathbf{k} \left[ \frac{\sigma L^2}{2} \left( \frac{2}{a_c^2} + \mathbf{k}^2 \right) h^*_\mathbf{k} \right] \right \rangle = \left \langle E_\mathbf{k} \right \rangle = k_B T.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
And again we get the same result. What do you think of it? Is there a mistake? Please help, I&#039;m really stuck with it. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Yrogirg Grigory Sarnitskiy]. [[Special:Contributions/91.76.179.101|91.76.179.101]] 19:45, 30 January 2009 (CET)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== A quick comment ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I may be wrong, but looking at your derivation it seems the boundary conditions are not correctly&lt;br /&gt;
described. If the system is fixed to some immobile frame, only &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\sin&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; terms should appear in the modes, not &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\cos&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. If, on the other hand, periodic boundary conditions are applied, the opposite applies: only &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\cos&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, not &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\sin&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. This may explain the factor of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; that&#039;s missing... but I still have to think more carefully about this. --[[User:Dduque|Dduque]] 09:58, 3 February 2009 (CET)&lt;br /&gt;
:Thank you. Yes, I didn&#039;t appreciate the importance of boundary conditions. I think it is quite reasonable to take something like &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\frac{\partial h(x,y)}{\partial \mathbf{n}} \Big|_{wall}=0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, with &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\mathbf{n}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; normal to the wall. I suppose it is valid at least for more or less long waves (several minimal wavelengths), which contribute most to &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\langle h \rangle&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. It is likely there is no need to study molecular interaction between liquid and solid surface in this case — boundary conditions will not be affected by the material of the walls at least for real-life systems. So we get &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\frac{1}{2} k_B T&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; for each mode. Still I&#039;ll think it  over again and will wait for your reply. [[Special:Contributions/91.76.179.246|91.76.179.246]] 12:53, 3 February 2009 (CET) Well now I&#039;m not sure at all in the variant above. Have to dig the question. [[Special:Contributions/91.76.179.246|91.76.179.246]] 15:29, 3 February 2009 (CET)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>91.76.179.246</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>http://www.sklogwiki.org/SklogWiki/index.php?title=Talk:Capillary_waves&amp;diff=7689</id>
		<title>Talk:Capillary waves</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.sklogwiki.org/SklogWiki/index.php?title=Talk:Capillary_waves&amp;diff=7689"/>
		<updated>2009-02-03T11:53:25Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;91.76.179.246: /* A quick comment */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;==Thermal capillary waves==&lt;br /&gt;
Hello, now I&#039;m writing the same article for [http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A2%D0%B5%D0%BF%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%8B%D0%B5_%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%BF%D0%B8%D0%BB%D0%BB%D1%8F%D1%80%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B5_%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BD%D1%8B Russian wikipedia]. While I was deducing the expression for mean square amplitude I found my result to be two times less than common one (that is in [http://books.google.com/books?id=_ydSF_XUVeEC&amp;amp;printsec=frontcover&amp;amp;hl=ru#PPA115,M1 Molecular Theory of Capillarity] and refered to in many articles). Could you please tell me weather I am right or not.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I claim that the mean energy of each mode is &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;k_B T&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; rather than &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\frac{1}{2} k_B T&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. That&#039;s because each mode has to degrees of freedom &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;A_{mn}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;B_{mn}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, since each wave is &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;A_{mn} \cos(\frac{2\pi}{L}mx+\frac{2\pi}{L}ny) + B_{mn} \sin(\frac{2\pi}{L}mx+\frac{2\pi}{L}ny)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, with the energy of each mode proportional to &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;A_{mn}^2+B_{mn}^2&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. This obviously lead to the mean energy of each mode to be &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;k_B T&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. That was the real notation and now lets turn to the complex notation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Each mode with the fixed wave vector is presented as &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;h_\mathbf{k} \exp(i \; \mathbf{k} \cdot \boldsymbol{\tau})&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\mathbf{k}=(\frac{2 \pi}{L}m, \frac{2 \pi}{L}n), \; m,n \in \mathbb{Z}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; — wave vector, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\boldsymbol{\tau}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; — &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;(x,y)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; vector. The energy is proportional to &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;h_\mathbf{k}^*h_\mathbf{k}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; (indeed it is &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_\mathbf{k}=\frac{\sigma L^2}{2} \left( \frac{2}{a_c^2} + \mathbf{k}^2 \right) h^*_\mathbf{k} h_\mathbf{k}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;). According to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equipartition equipartition]:&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
\left \langle x_i \frac{\partial H}{\partial x_j} \right \rangle = \delta_{ij}  k_B T,&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
we obtain:&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
\left \langle h_\mathbf{k} \, \frac{\partial}{\partial h_\mathbf{k}} \left[ \frac{\sigma L^2}{2} \left( \frac{2}{a_c^2} + \mathbf{k}^2 \right) h^*_\mathbf{k} h_\mathbf{k} \right] \right \rangle = \left \langle h_\mathbf{k} \left[ \frac{\sigma L^2}{2} \left( \frac{2}{a_c^2} + \mathbf{k}^2 \right) h^*_\mathbf{k} \right] \right \rangle = \left \langle E_\mathbf{k} \right \rangle = k_B T.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
And again we get the same result. What do you think of it? Is there a mistake? Please help, I&#039;m really stuck with it. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Yrogirg Grigory Sarnitskiy]. [[Special:Contributions/91.76.179.101|91.76.179.101]] 19:45, 30 January 2009 (CET)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== A quick comment ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I may be wrong, but looking at your derivation it seems the boundary conditions are not correctly&lt;br /&gt;
described. If the system is fixed to some immobile frame, only &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\sin&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; terms should appear in the modes, not &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\cos&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. If, on the other hand, periodic boundary conditions are applied, the opposite applies: only &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\cos&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, not &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\sin&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. This may explain the factor of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; that&#039;s missing... but I still have to think more carefully about this. --[[User:Dduque|Dduque]] 09:58, 3 February 2009 (CET)&lt;br /&gt;
:Thank you. Yes, I didn&#039;t appreciate the importance of boundary conditions. I think it is quite reasonable to take something like &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\frac{\partial h(x,y)}{\partial \mathbf{n}} \Big|_{wall}=0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, with &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\mathbf{n}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; normal to the wall. I suppose it is valid at least for more or less long waves (several minimal wavelengths), which contribute most to &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\langle h \rangle&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. It is likely there is no need to study molecular interaction between liquid and solid surface in this case — boundary conditions will not be affected by the material of the walls at least for real-life systems. So we get &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\frac{1}{2} k_B T&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; for each mode. Still I&#039;ll think it  over again and will wait for your reply. [[Special:Contributions/91.76.179.246|91.76.179.246]] 12:53, 3 February 2009 (CET)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>91.76.179.246</name></author>
	</entry>
</feed>