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

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