Insights Blog
-- Browse All Articles --
Physics Articles
Physics Tutorials
Physics Guides
Physics FAQ
Math Articles
Math Tutorials
Math Guides
Math FAQ
Education Articles
Education Guides
Bio/Chem Articles
Technology Guides
Computer Science Tutorials
Forums
Trending
Featured Threads
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
Physics
Classical Physics
Mechanics
Chemical potential and fugacity
Reply to thread
Message
[QUOTE="Kaguro, post: 6479031, member: 647065"] I am trying to learn statistical physics. While learning MB statistics, my textbook defined chemical potential as ##\mu = (\frac{\partial F}{\partial N})_{V,T}##. That's nice. Later when I started on Quantum statistics, my textbook described all three distribution functions via: ##n_i = \frac{g_i}{e^{\alpha + \beta E_i} + \kappa}## We had already found out the value of beta from MB statistics (using MB distr. function. Why would that apply here is another mystery altogether) Then suddenly book said: ##n_i = \frac{g_i}{e^{\frac{E_i - \mu}{K_B T}} + \kappa}## Where we define chemical potential via the relation ##\alpha = -\mu/kT## (and its exponential is called fugacity) How and why did the book define the same thing twice!? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Post reply
Forums
Physics
Classical Physics
Mechanics
Chemical potential and fugacity
Back
Top