5
$\begingroup$

The derivation in Wikipedia assumes high degeneracy:

Let $w(n,g)$ be the number of ways of distributing $n$ particles among the $g$ sublevels of an energy level.

(...)

The number of ways that a set of occupation numbers $n_i$ can be realized is the product of the ways that each individual energy level can be populated:

$$W=\prod_i w(n_i,g_i)=\prod_i{\frac{(n_i+g_i-1)!}{n_i!(g_i-1)!}}\approx \prod_i{\frac {(n_i+g_i)!}{n_i!(g_i-1)!}}$$

where the approximation assumes that $n_i\gg 1$.

I think the "$n_i\gg 1$" is a typo and they actually meant $g_i\gg 1$. If $g_i = 1$, for example, then $W = 1$.

$\endgroup$
7
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ It's not very clear what you're asking. Could you please clarify a bit? $\endgroup$
    – auden
    Commented Aug 3, 2016 at 12:29
  • $\begingroup$ @heather How to derive non-degenerate Bose-Einstein statistics in the canonical ensemble? $\endgroup$
    – Wood
    Commented Aug 3, 2016 at 12:34
  • $\begingroup$ @heather if you have any link it would work too, though I'd prefer a proof following the approach given in that Wikipedia article (for the case g=1). $\endgroup$
    – Wood
    Commented Aug 3, 2016 at 12:40
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The best way to derive B-E statistics in canonical ensemble is to say that one is approximately in grand canonical ensemble, since B-E statistics are exactly derivable in that case. $\endgroup$
    – Nanite
    Commented Aug 5, 2016 at 12:20
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Wood, You can see Reif, F. (1965). Fundamentals of Statistical and Thermal Physics. McGraw–Hill. ISBN 978-0-07-051800-1, p.342. Also physics.stackexchange.com/questions/340850/… $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 27, 2017 at 17:53

1 Answer 1

2
+50
$\begingroup$

You have to remember that Bose-Einstein statistics only arises from the grand canonical ensemble, i.e. for a system where the energy and the number of particles are not fixed ; only their mean energy $\langle E \rangle $ and mean number of particles $\langle N \rangle $ are fixed respectively by the temperature $T$ and the chemical potential $\mu$ of the thermostat.

However, one can show that, at the thermodynamic limit, at thermodynamic equilibrium, all statistical ensembles are equivalent since the relative particle number fluctuations $\Delta N$ drop to zero as $N\rightarrow +\infty$.

So what you are trying to do here is to derive the Bose-Einstein statistics in the canonical ensemble, which is only possible in the thermodynamic limit. This is the reason of the approximation "$n_i\gg 1$", which actually stands for "at the thermodynamic limit".

EDIT : How to perform properly the approximation

As stated in the wikipedia article, we have : $$ W=\prod_i\frac{(n_i+g_i-1)!}{n_i!(g_i-1)!} $$ In the case $\forall\,i,\;g_i=1$, we have : $$ W=\prod_i\frac{n_i!}{n_i!0!}=1 $$ with the convention $0!=1$.

This obviously stays true in the limit $n_i\gg 1$. You always have to take the limit $n_i\gg 1$ at the end of all calculations, i.e. after taking $g_i=1$.

$\endgroup$
5
  • $\begingroup$ I'm not sure I follow. If $g_i = 1$, then $W = 1$, but the "approximation" gives a huge number! And it only gets worse for high values of $n_i$. $\endgroup$
    – Wood
    Commented Aug 5, 2016 at 13:00
  • $\begingroup$ "but the "approximation" gives a huge number" $\rightarrow$ could you explain a bit more what you mean by this? I'm not sure to understand your problem... $\endgroup$
    – dolun
    Commented Aug 5, 2016 at 15:23
  • $\begingroup$ It becomes $W \approx \prod_i n_i+1 $, which is completely wrong and even worse for $n_i \gg 1$. Also it makes no sense to maximize $W$ if it's a constant function. $\endgroup$
    – Wood
    Commented Aug 5, 2016 at 23:06
  • $\begingroup$ I don't know why this answer has 2 votes, it's just wrong. It makes no sense to maximize a function $W=1$. $\endgroup$
    – Wood
    Commented Aug 9, 2016 at 12:09
  • $\begingroup$ From the article: "(...) we wish to find the set of $n_i$ for which $W$ is maximised". You just typed a few facts about Bose-Einstein statistics without addressing the question. $\endgroup$
    – Wood
    Commented Aug 10, 2016 at 8:37

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

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