Confusing about Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution in non-classical region

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the application of the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution in the context of statistical mechanics, particularly when transitioning from classical to quantum mechanics. Participants explore the implications of using momentum and wavenumber distributions for non-interacting systems, including considerations for bosonic gases at low temperatures.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested, Technical explanation, Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the validity of transitioning from classical to quantum mechanics by simply introducing the Planck constant in the momentum relation, expressing uncertainty about the conditions under which the Maxwell distribution applies in quantum cases.
  • Another participant points out a potential error in the dimensional analysis of the momentum distribution, suggesting that the units must be dimensionless and that the correct expression should involve the square root of 1/(2πm kT).
  • There is a repeated inquiry about the correct expression for the quantum case when considering the wavenumber distribution, with attempts made to derive it while noting issues with dimensional consistency.
  • Participants discuss the necessity for the distribution functions to be dimensionless, leading to considerations of how to relate the momentum and wavenumber distributions correctly.
  • One participant expresses frustration that their derived expression for the wavenumber distribution still results in incorrect dimensions, specifically questioning how to achieve the correct units.
  • Another participant reiterates the importance of ensuring that the relationship between the distributions maintains dimensional consistency, emphasizing the need for f(k) to have dimensions that align with the requirements of the distribution.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express disagreement regarding the correct formulation of the distributions and the dimensional analysis involved. There is no consensus on the appropriate expressions or the conditions under which the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution can be applied in quantum contexts.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include unresolved mathematical steps regarding the dimensional analysis of the distributions and the assumptions about the applicability of the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution in quantum scenarios.

KFC
Messages
477
Reaction score
4
Hi there,
I am reading some materials on statistical mechanics and for the section on momentum distribution, there mention for some non-interacting system, the momenta distribution are satisfying the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution, which is summarized in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell–Boltzmann_distribution

If we consider the problem as 1 dimensional, the momentum distribution becomes

f(p) = [m/(2\pi k_B T)]^{-1/2}\exp[-p^2/(2mk_BT)]

This look good to me. But in some books or materials, for getting into quantum region, the author simply considers the non-interacting system by introducing the relation with Planck const. as

p = \hbar k

such that

f(k) = \hbar[m/(2\pi k_B T)]^{-1/2}\exp[-(\hbar k)^2/(2mk_BT)]


My question is, is that really the correct way to go from classical into quantum mechanics by just introducing the \hbar in the momentum relation to the wavenumber for the non-interacting system? As I have noticed in other book for statistical mechanics, the Maxwell distribution can only be applied for the system with the hypothesis that the particles are non-interacting, identical but distinguishable. But for quantum case, I don't know how this condition is hold. Since the author trying to apply the above distribution to a bosonic gas at really low temperature (call BEC?), should this condition hold for this case? But even that's true, why don't we use the boson statistics instead?

For my second question, if f(k) is the correct distribution, how come this quantity \hbar[m/(2\pi k_B T)]^{-1/2} has the unit of wave number? I try to do the math but I get meter square instead.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Something is wrong with the first equation. Just doing dimensional analysis, we have to have f(p)dp be dimensionless so f(p) has to have units of 1/(mv). It has units of the square root of kT/m. kT is an energy so the units are v^2, not 1/(mv). The correct statement is the square root of 1/(2\pi m k T)
 
Rap said:
Something is wrong with the first equation. Just doing dimensional analysis, we have to have f(p)dp be dimensionless so f(p) has to have units of 1/(mv). It has units of the square root of kT/m. kT is an energy so the units are v^2, not 1/(mv). The correct statement is the square root of 1/(2\pi m k T)

Ok. Thanks. So what's the right expression for the quantum case when the wavenumber distribution being consindered? I try

f(k) = \hbar\sqrt{\frac{1}{2\pi m k_B T}} \exp[-(\hbar k)^2/(2mk_B T)]

but the dimension is not correct.
 
KFC said:
Ok. Thanks. So what's the right expression for the quantum case when the wavenumber distribution being consindered? I try

f(k) = \hbar\sqrt{\frac{1}{2\pi m k_B T}} \exp[-(\hbar k)^2/(2mk_B T)]

but the dimension is not correct.

For a distribution of any variable x, you have to have f(x)dx be dimensionless. So you have to use f(p)dp=f(k)dk, which means f(k)=f(p) dp/dk, that should give you the right answer.
 
Rap said:
For a distribution of any variable x, you have to have f(x)dx be dimensionless. So you have to use f(p)dp=f(k)dk, which means f(k)=f(p) dp/dk, that should give you the right answer.

Thanks. But that's what I did, not working. since p=\hbar k and dpdk = \hbar, plug that back to the f(p) with p written in k, I got the one I wrote before but the dimension is not correct. The right dimension should be in meter^{-1}
 
KFC said:
Thanks. But that's what I did, not working. since p=\hbar k and dpdk = \hbar, plug that back to the f(p) with p written in k, I got the one I wrote before but the dimension is not correct. The right dimension should be in meter^{-1}

Since k has dimensions 1/meter, and f(k)dk is dimensionless, f(k) must have dimensions of meters.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
5K