Canonical Bose-Einstein statistics

Join the discussion
Registration is free. Ask a follow-up in this thread, or start your own.
3 replies · 4K views
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...