Timeline for Partition Function and BlackBody Radiation
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 20, 2021 at 0:08 | answer | added | Han Xu | timeline score: 0 | |
| Dec 5, 2015 at 21:42 | vote | accept | Zane Dufour | ||
| Dec 3, 2015 at 21:01 | answer | added | anonymous67 | timeline score: 3 | |
| Oct 27, 2015 at 3:09 | comment | added | Zane Dufour | Also, I'm not trying to "break" statistical mechanics or something stupid like that. The first result was something I was asked to prove on a homework assignment and the second result was used by my prof to demonstrate the Stefan-Boltzmann law. My assumption is that the two situations are fundamentally different, but I still don't understand why the overall partition function for Blackbody Radiation is a sum instead of a product (it doesn't seem like we're counting states with photons with different frequencies). | |
| Oct 27, 2015 at 3:04 | history | edited | Zane Dufour | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Tidied up notation
|
| Oct 27, 2015 at 2:59 | comment | added | Zane Dufour | I tidied up my notation a bit so that there shouldn't be any equivocation. | |
| Oct 27, 2015 at 2:55 | history | edited | Zane Dufour | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Tidied up notation
|
| Oct 27, 2015 at 2:32 | comment | added | CR Drost | My gut feeling is that you are equivocating (using the same term to mean two different things), and I think that the term you're equivocating over is $s$. We should probably say "state $i$ contains $n_{ij}$ photons at frequency $\omega_j$ leading to $E_i = \sum_j n_{ij} \hbar \omega_j.$ This causes your "derivation" to look instead like $\sum_i \Pi_j \exp(-\beta~n_{ij}~\hbar~\omega_j).$ | |
| Oct 27, 2015 at 2:12 | history | asked | Zane Dufour | CC BY-SA 3.0 |