I Clarification required for some equations in the formulation of ideal Bose gas

  • I
  • Thread starter Thread starter Wrichik Basu
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Gas
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the equations governing the ideal Bose gas as presented in "Statistical Mechanics" by Pathria and Beale. The main inquiry is whether the relation g_{3/2}(z) = λ^3/v holds for all values of z or temperature. It is clarified that this relation is valid in the context of the grand canonical ensemble, where the average number of particles aligns with the actual number. The condition for the chemical potential μ ensures that fluctuations in particle number are negligible for large N, supporting the validity of the equation. Overall, the relationship is affirmed to be applicable across the discussed temperature ranges.
Wrichik Basu
Science Advisor
Insights Author
Gold Member
Messages
2,180
Reaction score
2,717
I am studying Ideal Bose Systems (Chapter 7) from the book "Statistical Mechanics" by Pathria and Beale (4th Ed. - 2021). ##\require{physics}## ##\require{cases}##

The authors have derived the following relations: $$\begin{align}
\dfrac{P}{k_B T} &= \dfrac{1}{\lambda^3} g_{5/2}(z), \label{eq:pres_general} \\[1em]
\dfrac{N - N_0}{V} &= \dfrac{1}{\lambda^3} g_{5/2}(z),
\end{align}$$ where ##N_0## is the number of particles in the ground state (##\varepsilon = 0##), ##N## is the total number of particles, ##z## is the fugacity defined by $$\begin{equation}
z = \exp \left(\dfrac{\mu}{k_B T} \right),
\end{equation}$$ ##\lambda## is the de Broglie wavelength: $$\begin{equation}
\lambda = \dfrac{h}{(2\pi m k_B T)^{1/2}},
\end{equation}$$ and ##g_\nu (z)## is the Bose-Einstein function: $$\begin{equation}
g_\nu (z) = \dfrac{1}{\Gamma(\nu)} \int\limits_0^\infty \dfrac{x^{\nu - 1} ~ \mathrm{d}x}{z^{-1} \mathrm{e}^x - 1}.
\end{equation}$$ I have also learned that $$ g_\nu(z = 1) = \zeta(\nu); \qquad (\nu > 1) $$ where ##\zeta(\nu)## is the Riemann zeta function, and if ##\nu \le 1## in the above equation, then ##g_\nu(z \rightarrow 1)## diverges.

The critical temperature ##T_c## below which the condensate forms, is defined as: $$\begin{equation}
T_c = \dfrac{h^2}{2\pi m k_B } \left[ \dfrac{N}{V \zeta(3/2)} \right]^{2/3}.
\end{equation}$$

My issue starts in the section where the authors describe how ##z## varies with ##v/\lambda^3## where ##v## is the inverse of the particle density: $$ \begin{equation}
v = \dfrac{1}{n} = \dfrac{V}{N}. \label{eq:def_v}
\end{equation}$$ Let me first summarize what the authors write:
1. For ##0 \le (v/\lambda^3) \le \qty[\zeta(3/2)]^{-1}## (which corresponds to ##0 \le T \le T_c##), ##z \approx 1.##

2. For ##(v/\lambda^3) > \qty[\zeta(3/2)]^{-1}##, ##z < 1## and is determined from the relationship $$\begin{equation}
g_{3/2} (z) = \lambda^3 / v < \zeta(3/2
\end{equation}$$ or equivalently from $$\begin{equation}
\dfrac{g_{3/2}(z)}{g_{3/2}(1)} = \qty( \dfrac{T_c}{T} )^{3/2} < 1.
\end{equation}$$

3. For ##(v/\lambda^3) \gg 1,## ##g_{3/2}(z) \ll 1## and hence ##z \ll 1.## Therefore, we can expand ##g## in powers of ##z## and write ##g_{3/2}(z) \approx z \Rightarrow z \approx (v/\lambda^3)^{-1}.##
I know that in the domain of ##z## that we are interested in (##z \in [0, 1]##), ##g_{3/2}(z) \le \zeta(3/2).##

The Question: As far as I understand, ##g_{3/2} (z) = \frac{\lambda^3}{v}.## But is this relation valid ##\forall ~ z## (or, equivalently, ##\forall ~ T##) ?

How did this question arise?

In the book, it is nowhere clearly written whether ##g_{3/2} (z) = \frac{\lambda^3}{v}## is always valid. Mostly, the authors have used this equality when ##T > T_c## or ##z < 1,## (for example, point no. 3 in the above quote). But, the following probably suggests that the equality may be valid for all ##T##:

The authors have written the following expressions for the pressure of the ideal Bose gas: $$
\begin{subnumcases}{P (T) = }
\dfrac{k_B T}{\lambda^3} \zeta(5/2) & \text{for } T < T_c, \label{eq:pres_T_lt_Tc} \\[1em]
\dfrac{\zeta(5/2)}{\zeta(3/2)} \dfrac{N}{V} k_B T_c \approx 0.5134~\dfrac{N}{V} k_B T_c & \text{for } T = T_c, \\[1em]
\dfrac{N}{V}k_B T \dfrac{g_{5/2}(z)}{g_{3/2}(z)} & \text{for } T > T_c \label{eq:pres_T_gt_Tc}
\end{subnumcases}$$
It is clear that Eq. \eqref{eq:pres_T_lt_Tc} has been derived from Eq. \eqref{eq:pres_general} by setting ##z = 1.## However, Eq. \eqref{eq:pres_T_lt_Tc} and Eq. \eqref{eq:pres_T_gt_Tc} are closely related — in the latter, if we set ##z = 1## and substitute ##g_{3/2}(1) = \lambda^3 / v,## and using Eq. \eqref{eq:def_v}, we precisely get back Eq. \eqref{eq:pres_T_lt_Tc}.

I have seen a similar thing in the expressions for ##C_V##. Hence my question.

Edit: Improved grammar.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Wrichik Basu said:
The Question: As far as I understand, ##g_{3/2} (z) = \frac{\lambda^3}{v}.## But is this relation valid ##\forall ~ z## (or, equivalently, ##\forall ~ T##) ?
Yes.

Remember that quantum statistical physics is derived in the grand canonical ensemble, where the number of particles can fluctuate, even though the system at hand has a fixed number of particles. To make this work, we require that ##\mu## be chosen such that we recover ##\langle N \rangle \approx N##, i.e., the average number of particles corresponds to the actual number of particles (for big enough ##N## fluctuations are negligible, so we don't care that it is only valid "on average"). If you set up the equation for ##\langle N \rangle##, you will find that setting ##\langle N \rangle = N## leads to ##g_{3/2} (z) = \frac{\lambda^3}{v}##. (All of this assumes we are considering a gas of free particles.)

Edit: post edited since it appears that the braket package is broken in MathJax.
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
Likes Wrichik Basu
DrClaude said:
Yes.

Remember that quantum statistical physics is derived in the grand canonical ensemble, where the number of particles can fluctuate, even though the system at hand has a fixed number of particles. To make this work, we require that ##\mu## be chosen such that we recover ##\braket{N} \approx N##, i.e., the average number of particles corresponds to the actual number of particles (for big enough ##N## fluctuations are negligible, so we don't care that it is only valid "on average"). If you set up the equation for ##\braket{N}##, you will find that setting ##\braket{N} = N## leads to ##g_{3/2} (z) = \frac{\lambda^3}{v}##. (All of this assumes we are considering a gas of free particles.)
Thank you for the explanation.
 
I think it's easist first to watch a short vidio clip I find these videos very relaxing to watch .. I got to thinking is this being done in the most efficient way? The sand has to be suspended in the water to move it to the outlet ... The faster the water , the more turbulance and the sand stays suspended, so it seems to me the rule of thumb is the hose be aimed towards the outlet at all times .. Many times the workers hit the sand directly which will greatly reduce the water...
I don't need cloth simulation. I need to simulate clothing meshes. Made of triangles and I need an answer that someone with High School math can understand. I am actually using the time it takes for someone to answer to create a model with less geometry than the one I have been using. I want clothing that can be removed on a model that will be animated. I don't need stretching or wrinkles on my meshes, I just need gravity. I have an idea of how I could do it, but I don't know how to apply...
Back
Top