Average number of particles/subsystems in a state

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around calculating the average number of subsystems in a specific energy state within a thermal equilibrium system. The average number of particles in a state is derived using Boltzmann statistics, with different formulas applicable for photons and fermions. There is confusion regarding the terminology used in the problem, particularly the distinction between "system" and "subsystem," leading to ambiguity in interpreting the question. The provided answer suggests a misunderstanding of the context, as the terms may refer to an ensemble versus individual subsystems. The participant expresses skepticism about the clarity of the question, especially given its appearance in a standardized test like the GRE.
devd
Messages
47
Reaction score
1

Homework Statement


A system in thermal equilibrium at temperature T consists of a large number
mimetex.gif
of subsystems, each of which can exist only in two states of energy
mimetex.gif
and
mimetex.gif
, where
mimetex.gif
. In the expressions that follow, k is the Boltzmann constant.

For a system at temperature T, the average number of subsystems in the state of energy
mimetex.gif
is given by

  1. 2$.gif
  2. kT}}$.gif
  3. kT}$.gif
  4. kT}}$.gif
  5. kT}}{2}$.gif

Homework Equations


Probability of a system to be in a system-microstate of total energy ##E_R##,
##P_R = \frac{e^{-\beta E_R}} {\sum_{R} e^{-\beta E_R}} ##

The Attempt at a Solution


We have the constraint ##\sum_r n_r= N_0 ## and ## \sum_r n_r \epsilon_r = E_R##
Where, r labels the single particle states.
Therefore, the average number of particles in the sth 1 particle state,
##\langle n_s\rangle = \frac{\sum_R n_s e^{-\beta (\sum_r n_r \epsilon_r)}}{\sum_{R} e^{-\beta (\sum_r \epsilon_r)}}##

To proceed one needs the nature of the particles.
For example,
## \langle n_s\rangle = \frac{1}{e^{\beta \epsilon_s} -1}## for Photons
## \langle n_s\rangle = \frac{1}{e^{(\beta \epsilon_s -\mu)}+1}## for FD statistics etc.

How do i proceed without further info? The question seems to conflate states of the total system with the subsystem states. I think the question is problematic and ambiguous. Anyhow, the supplied 'correct' answer is option (B).
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The given options only makes sense if by 'system' they mean ensemble and by 'subsystem' they mean members of the ensemble.
Then, ##P(E_1)= \cfrac{e^{-\beta E_1}}{e^{-\beta E_1}+e^{-\beta E_2}}##
Again, ##P(E_1)= \cfrac{N_1}{N_0}. ## Therefore, ##N_1 = N_0\left(\cfrac{e^{-\beta E_1}}{e^{-\beta E_1}+e^{-\beta E_2}}\right)##
And hence, ##N_1 = N_0\left(\cfrac{1}{1+e^{-\beta \epsilon}}\right)## , where ## E_2-E_1= \epsilon## .

But, if they're talking about a single system, then the options don't make sense to me. But, this question appeared in the GRE, so they aren't likely to make such errors. So, what am i missing?
 
Thread 'Help with Time-Independent Perturbation Theory "Good" States Proof'
(Disclaimer: this is not a HW question. I am self-studying, and this felt like the type of question I've seen in this forum. If there is somewhere better for me to share this doubt, please let me know and I'll transfer it right away.) I am currently reviewing Chapter 7 of Introduction to QM by Griffiths. I have been stuck for an hour or so trying to understand the last paragraph of this proof (pls check the attached file). It claims that we can express Ψ_{γ}(0) as a linear combination of...
Thread 'Stacked blocks & pulley system'
I've posted my attempt at a solution but I haven't gone through the whole process of putting together equations 1 -4 yet as I wanted to clarify if I'm on the right path My doubt lies in the formulation of equation 4 - the force equation for the stacked block. Since we don't know the acceleration of the masses and we don't know if mass M is heavy enough to cause m2 to slide, do we leave F_{12x} undetermined and not equate this to \mu_{s} F_{N} ? Are all the equations considering all...
Back
Top