1
$\begingroup$

First of all, I'm not majoring this part and just finding some answer about Arrhenius rate equation: $$ v \propto \exp\left(-\frac{E_a}{kT}\right) .$$

To derive this relation, I started with Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution. When there are $N=\sum_j n_j $ particles with energy distribution $$ E_{tot} = \sum_j \epsilon_j n_j $$, the disorder number becomes $$\Omega = \frac{N!}{n_1 ! n_2 ! n_3 ! \ldots}. $$ To find when to get the maximum $\Omega$, I used Lagrange multiplyer. Therefore, not considering degeneracy, I got this:$$\textrm{d}(\ln\Omega)=\sum_j\left(\ln \frac{1}{n_j} +\alpha -\beta\epsilon_j\right)\textrm{d}n_j$$ To make $\textrm{d}(\ln\Omega)$ be zero, I obtained $$ n(\epsilon)=e^\alpha e^{-\beta\epsilon}.$$

But, the question is how we know that $\beta = \frac{1}{k_B T}$? Somewhere i found that by using $\beta = \frac{\textrm{d}\ln\Omega}{\textrm{d}E}$ and the equation of entropy it is possible. However, I assumed that total energy $E$ is constant so I think $\textrm{d}E$ should be 0. What's the problem in my way?

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ You have assumed a constant $E$ and got $\Omega$, moreover, if you assume an another value of $E$, then you get an another $\Omega$ by repeating what you have done. Hence, $\Omega$ is a function of $E$, it is not strange and we can calculate $\frac{d ln \Omega}{d E}$. $\endgroup$ – qfzklm Sep 9 '15 at 11:40
  • $\begingroup$ In this problem, I cannot understand exactly what another $E$ and another $\Omega$ mean. Could you explain little bit more? Thanks @qfzklm. $\endgroup$ – Jungmin Kim Sep 9 '15 at 11:46
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ For a simple case, let's assmue that $\epsilon=1$ and $E$ is nothing but $N$. Then, assuming $E=1000000$ we can get $\Omega$, and also another $E=1000001$ and another $\Omega$. We can roughly consider $dE$ equal to $1000001-1000000=1$ and obtain $d ln \Omega$. Noted here a large enough particle number is necessary in statistics. $\endgroup$ – qfzklm Sep 9 '15 at 12:06
  • $\begingroup$ The problem is that statistical mechanics does not describe dynamics. Arrhenius's law is an experimental observation. $\endgroup$ – Tom-Tom Sep 10 '15 at 20:22
2
$\begingroup$

In the derivation of the Boltzmann distribution, one finds the maximum of the function \begin{equation}\ \ln \Omega(\{n_{i}\}) = \ln\!\Big[\Big(\sum_{i} n_{i}\Big)!\Big]-\sum_{i}\ln n_{i}! \end{equation} under the constraints \begin{equation} \sum_{i} n_{i} = N,\quad \sum_{i} n_{i}\epsilon_{i} = E, \end{equation} where the corresponding Lagrange multipliers are respectively called $\alpha$ and $\beta$. The constrained maximum of $\ln \Omega$ occurring at $n_{i} = \exp(-\alpha-\beta\epsilon_{i})$ (i.e., the Boltzmann distribution) is a function of $N$ and $E$. Let's denote it as $\ln \tilde{\Omega}(N,E)$. A theorem on constrained stationary point (which I will state and prove below) guarantees that \begin{equation} \beta = \frac{\partial \ln\tilde{\Omega}}{\partial E}. \end{equation}

Theorem. Suppose that a stationary point of a function $f(\{x_{i}\})$ under a set of constraints $\big\{g_{\alpha}(\{x_{i}\}) = c_{\alpha}\big\}$ occurs at $\big\{\tilde{x}_{i}(\{c_{\alpha}\})\big\}$. Define $\tilde{f}(\{c_{\alpha}\})\equiv f\Big(\Big\{\tilde{x}_{i}\big(\{c_{\alpha}\}\big)\Big\}\Big)$. Then, \begin{equation} \frac{\partial\tilde{f}}{\partial c_{\alpha}} = \lambda_{\alpha}, \end{equation} where $\lambda_{\alpha}$ is the Lagrange multiplier for the $\alpha$-th constraint, i.e., \begin{equation} \left[\frac{\partial f}{\partial x_{i}} - \sum_{\alpha} \lambda_{\alpha}\frac{\partial g_{\alpha}}{\partial x_{i}}\right]_{x_{i}=\tilde{x}_{i}} = 0. \end{equation}

Proof. \begin{equation} \begin{split} \frac{\partial \tilde{f}}{\partial c_{\alpha}} &= \sum_{i}\frac{\partial f}{\partial x_{i}}\Bigg|_{x_{i}=\tilde{x}_{i}} \frac{\partial \tilde{x}_{i}}{\partial c_{\alpha}} = \sum_{i} \sum_{\beta}\lambda_{\beta}\frac{\partial g_{\beta}}{\partial x_{i}}\Bigg|_{x_{i}=\tilde{x}_{i}} \frac{\partial \tilde{x}_{i}}{\partial c_{\alpha}}\\ &=\sum_{\beta}\lambda_{\beta}\frac{\partial g_{\beta}\Big(\Big\{\tilde{x}_{i}\big(\{c_{\gamma}\}\big)\Big\}\Big)}{\partial c_{\alpha}} = \sum_{\beta}\lambda_{\beta} \frac{\partial c_{\beta}}{\partial c_{\alpha}} =\sum_{\beta}\lambda_{\beta}\delta_{\alpha\beta}\\ &= \lambda_{\alpha}, \end{split} \end{equation} where the first and third equalities follow from the chain rule.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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