Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

To derive Bose-Einstein and Fermi-Dirac distribution, we need to apply grand canonical ensemble:$Z(z,V,T)=\displaystyle\sum_{N=0}^{\infty}[z^N\sideset{}{'}\sum\limits_{\{n_j\}}e^{-\beta\sum\limits_{j}n_j\epsilon_j}]$. There is a constraint $\sideset{}{'}\sum\limits_{\{n_j\}}$ for quantum particles(bosons and fermions) in grand canonical ensemble:$\sum\limits_{j}n_j=N$, but why is there no such a constraint for classical particels?

share|cite|improve this question
Quite on the contrary, the grand canonical ensemble means that the total number of particles is left unconstrained and we specify the dual complementary variable, the chemical potential. That's true for Maxwell-Boltzmann, Fermi-Dirac, and Bose-Einstein - or another - distribution. I also have a trouble with your first sentence. – Luboš Motl Apr 6 '13 at 15:05

For fermions, there is a constraint that each occupation number $n_i$ can only be either 0 or 1 because of the Pauli exclusion principle; no two fermions can occupy the same quantum state, but for bosons, there is no such constraint on the occupation numbers. For classical particles, namely those for which energy levels aren't quantized, there isn't a well-defined notion of occupation numbers.

share|cite|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

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