Canonical Bose-Einstein statistics

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the derivation of Bose-Einstein statistics using the canonical ensemble, contrasting it with the more common grand canonical approach. Participants explore the implications of this derivation and the notation used in the expressions.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation, Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions why Bose-Einstein statistics are typically derived from the grand canonical partition function and presents their own derivation, expressing confusion about the role of the chemical potential in their results.
  • Another participant notes the prevalence of research on Bose-Einstein condensates but expresses surprise at the lack of curiosity regarding the canonical expression for Bose-Einstein statistics.
  • Multiple participants seek clarification on the notation used in the expressions, specifically the meaning of (1-e^x)^{\pm}, with one participant explaining that it represents either (1-e^x) or (1+e^x) depending on the statistics being discussed.
  • There is a clarification that the notation is a standard way of combining Fermi-Dirac and Bose-Einstein statistics, though the original poster does not claim ownership of this notation.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express confusion and seek clarification on notation, but there is no consensus on the derivation of the canonical expression for Bose-Einstein statistics. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the implications of the chemical potential in the derivation.

Contextual Notes

There are limitations in the clarity of notation and assumptions regarding the derivation steps, particularly concerning the treatment of the chemical potential and the canonical ensemble.

quetzalcoatl9
Messages
535
Reaction score
1
I've been curious as to why Bose-Einstein statistics are always derived using the grand canonical partition function. Yes, I know it is easier, but there must also be an expression for the canonical ensemble. However, I was suprised that I have been unable to find it in the standard sources - so here is my own (troubled) derivation.

I start with the grand canonical partition function:

[tex]\sum^{0,1,..,M}_{\{n_k\}} \prod^{\infinty}_{k=1} e^{-\beta\left(\epsilon_k - \mu\right) n_k[/tex]

where M is 1 for FD and M is infinity for BE stats.

I now impose the constraint of [tex]N=\sum_k n_k[/tex] and wind up with:

[tex]\lambda^{N} \prod_{k=1}^{\infinty} \left(1 - e^{-\beta \epsilon_k} \right)^{\pm} = Z_{BE}^{FD}[/tex]

why didn't the chemical potential go away? I was expecting to get the same expression, but without any lambda term out in front.

Any ideas? Anyone at least KNOW what the canonical expression IS (so that I can compare my answer)?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
everyone and his brother seem to be researching BE condensates these days, and yet no one is the least bit curious about this?
 
don't understand your notation
[tex](1-e^x)^{\pm}[/tex]?
what is to the power of +/-? as you know, you get either (1-e^x) or (1+e^x)
 
mjsd said:
don't understand your notation
[tex](1-e^x)^{\pm}[/tex]?
what is to the power of +/-? as you know, you get either (1-e^x) or (1+e^x)

no...it means you get "a" or "1/a"...

this is the standard way of writing Fermi-Dirac or Bose-Einstein statistics as combined in one expression, the notation isn't mine...
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
6K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
5K
Replies
6
Views
4K