Derivation of the Boltzmann Distribution

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on the application of the Lagrange Multiplier method in deriving the Boltzmann distribution, particularly the differentiation process. A key point is the distinction between partial differentiation and total differentiation; the former treats the total number of particles, N, as a constant, while the latter does not. The confusion arises when substituting N with its expression in terms of N_i before differentiation, which leads to additional terms that alter the outcome. The correct approach is to use partial differentiation since N is fixed in this context, allowing for the proper treatment of the N_i variables. Understanding when to apply partial versus total differentiation is crucial for obtaining the correct results in statistical mechanics derivations.
Peter Forbes
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
I have a question about the Lagrange Multiplier method used to derive the Boltzmann distribution. I'm following the first http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%E2%80%93Boltzmann_statistics" .

I can get to this equation fine:
a35dba0357e0d45d9f2ef9844a8c5819.png


And I understand how they get the next line,
<br /> \frac{df}{dN_i}=\ln{g_i}-\ln{N_i}-(\alpha+\beta \epsilon_i)<br />
by considering N a constant when they do the partial differentiation.

However, since N=\sum_{i=1}^n N_i, can't I substitute that expression everywhere I have a N in the first equation? Then the differentiation gives me
<br /> \frac{df}{dN_i}=\ln{(\sum_{i=1}^n N_i)}+(\alpha-1)(\sum_{i=1}^n N_i)+\ln{g_i}-\ln{N_i}-(\alpha+\beta \epsilon_i)<br />

Which clearly has a different solution. Substituting for N before doing the partial derivative changes things...but why? I don't understand how one way should be any "more correct" than the other.

Thanks in advance.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Actually you misquoted the Wikipedia page, it doesn't say
<br /> \frac{df}{dN_i}=\ln{g_i}-\ln{N_i}-(\alpha+\beta \epsilon_i)<br />
but it says
<br /> \frac{\partial f}{\partial N_i}=\ln{g_i}-\ln{N_i}-(\alpha+\beta \epsilon_i).<br />

The difference is the d on the left-hand side. If you do a partial derivation (with the curly d) with respect to N_i then you get the result that is given, because we can treat N as a constant. If you do a complete derivation (with the straight d) then indeed you get some extra terms:
\frac{df}{dN_i} = \frac{\partial f}{\partial N_i} + \frac{\partial f}{\partial N} \frac{\partial N}{\partial N_i}
assuming that none of the other quantities (g_i, \epsilon_i, \ldots) depends on Ni implicitly.

In this case, the partial derivative is the correct one because you are allowing the Ni's to vary, but you have a constraint on N (namely that the total number of particles is fixed, so N cannot change - therefore it is no use varying N and seeing if the function can be made smaller).
 
OK, thanks for the help.
But I still don't understand why we can't replace N with N=\sum_{i=1}^n N_i in the equation before we do the partial differentiation.

Note the first equation could be written
f(N_1,...N_n)=N\ln(N)-N + \alpha N + \beta E + N \sum_{i=1}^n (N_i \ln(g_i) - N_i \ln (N_i)-(\alpha+\beta \epsilon_i) N_i)

Where I've put the N outside the sum rather than the Ni's inside the sum. But the Ni's inside the sum are not treated as constants.

I understand that the partial derivatives mean keeping everything but the one variable constant. But there are equivalent ways of writing the same expression, which gives different answers after partial differentiation.

So I guess my question is, how would one know what form is the "correct one" to use before applying the partial differentiation?
 
Thread 'Question about pressure of a liquid'
I am looking at pressure in liquids and I am testing my idea. The vertical tube is 100m, the contraption is filled with water. The vertical tube is very thin(maybe 1mm^2 cross section). The area of the base is ~100m^2. Will he top half be launched in the air if suddenly it cracked?- assuming its light enough. I want to test my idea that if I had a thin long ruber tube that I lifted up, then the pressure at "red lines" will be high and that the $force = pressure * area$ would be massive...
I feel it should be solvable we just need to find a perfect pattern, and there will be a general pattern since the forces acting are based on a single function, so..... you can't actually say it is unsolvable right? Cause imaging 3 bodies actually existed somwhere in this universe then nature isn't gonna wait till we predict it! And yea I have checked in many places that tiny changes cause large changes so it becomes chaos........ but still I just can't accept that it is impossible to solve...
Back
Top