Derivation of the Canonical Ensemble

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the derivation of the canonical ensemble in statistical mechanics, focusing on the relationship between microstates and macrostates, particularly how energy levels relate to the probabilities of different microstates. Participants explore the implications of these relationships within the context of statistical thermodynamics.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant outlines a common derivation of the canonical ensemble, emphasizing the role of the heat reservoir and the definition of microstates in relation to the system's energy.
  • Another participant highlights the importance of considering the sum over all states of the system rather than just energy levels, suggesting that degeneracy must be accounted for in the partition function.
  • A different viewpoint is presented regarding the relationship between microstates and macrostates, arguing that a microstate should not be tied to a single energy level, as multiple microstates can correspond to the same energy state.
  • Further clarification is provided on the derivation of the probability for the system's energy, linking it to the number of microstates and introducing the concept of degeneracy as a factor in the probability calculations.
  • One participant reflects on their initial confusion about the compatibility of microstates with multiple energy states, concluding that each energy level corresponds to a unique set of microstates.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the relationship between microstates and energy levels, with some asserting that a microstate corresponds uniquely to a specific energy, while others argue for the potential for multiple microstates to share the same energy level. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the implications of degeneracy in the context of the canonical ensemble.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved assumptions regarding the definitions of microstates and macrostates, as well as the treatment of degeneracy in the partition function. The discussion also reflects varying interpretations of how energy levels relate to the statistical treatment of systems.

Dario56
Messages
289
Reaction score
48
One of the common derivations of the canonical ensemble goes as follows:

Assume there is a system of interest in the contact with heat reservoir which together form an isolated system. Heat can be exchanged between the system and reservoir until thermal equilibrium is established and both are at temperature ##T##.

Suppose system of interest is in microstate ##i## and that it has energy ##E_{i}##, energy of the reservoir is than defined as ##E_R = E - E_i##. In the last equation ##E## is the energy of the total isolated system which must be constant.

We want to determine the number of microstates of the total isolated system in which the system of interest is in microstate ##i## or the probability that isolated system will be in such a state. Number of such microstates is denoted as ##\Omega_i(E)## and is equal to the number of microstates of the reservoir ##\Omega_R(E - E_i)## since the system of interest is in particular microstate ##i##.

Total number of microstates of the isolated system is defined as: $$\Omega (E) = \sum_{i=1} \Omega_R(E - E_i)$$

that is, it is equal to sum of the number of the reservoir microstates over every microstate of the system of interest ##i##.

Not going further into the derivation, number of microstates and probability mentioned previously are given by: $$\Omega_R(E - E_i) = \Omega_R(E)e^{- \beta E_i}$$ $$ P_i = \frac {e^{-\beta E_i}} {\sum_{j=1}^N e^{-\beta E_j}} $$

where the denominator of the previous equation is the canonical partition function ##Z##and ##N## is the number of the microstates in which the system can be.Now, we come to my question.

According to the notation given, microstate of the system ##i## is determined by the system's energy ##E_i##.

However, we know that the task of statistical thermodynamics is to connect macrostate of the system with microstates in which it can be found. Energy of the system is its macrostate and therefore such a macrostate is compatible with many different microstates in which system may be.

Because of this, energy of the system ##E_i## can't depend only on particular microstate ##i## since the same microstate can be compatible with more than one energy of the system.

In another words, for any ## i## there may be more than one term in the partition function. However, equation form of the partition function doesn't allow more than one term for each microstate.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Delta2
Science news on Phys.org
One should keep in mind, that the sum in ##\Omega (E_{total}) = \sum_{n=1} \Omega_R(E_{total}- E_n)## is over all the states of the system of interest, ##S##, rather than over the energy levels of ##S##. In the latter case, one would have to include a factor of ##\Omega_S(E_n)## in the sum to take into account the degeneracy of states with energy ##E_n##.

See: "Statistical Physics" by David Tong

Statistical Physics - DAMTP

 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Dario56
That's why the usual derivation goes like
$$\Omega(E)=\Omega_1(E_1) \Omega_2(E_2)=\Omega_1(E_1) \Omega_2(E-E_1).$$
Then define the entropy
$$S=\ln \Omega(E)=k \ln \Omega_1(E_1) + k \ln \Omega_2(E-E_1).$$
The most probable state is given by the maximum of the entropy, i.e., for
$$1/T_1=\frac{\partial \Omega_1(E_1)}{\partial E_1} = 1/T_2=\left [\frac{\partial \Omega_2(E_2)}{\partial E_2} \right]_{E_2=E-E_1}.$$
That's the "zeroth Law" introducing temperature as a thermodynamical variable of state.

Now we consider the probability for the system of interest to have one of its possible energies ##E_1##. This probability is proportional to the number of microstates of system 2 with energy ##E-E_1## times the degeneracy factor of ##E_1##, which however is just an overall factor, all of which we lump into a common factor ##C##,
$$P(E_1)=C \Omega_2(E-E_1).$$
Expanding the logarithm of this gives
$$\ln P(E_1)=\ln C +\ln \Omega_2(E) -E_1/T=C'-E_1/T$$
and thus
$$P(E_1)=\frac{1}{Z} \exp(-E_1/T), \quad Z=\sum_{E_1} \exp(-E_1/T).$$
 
  • Informative
Likes   Reactions: Delta2
Lord Jestocost said:
One should keep in mind, that the sum in ##\Omega (E_{total}) = \sum_{n=1} \Omega_R(E_{total}- E_n)## is over all the states of the system of interest, ##S##, rather than over the energy levels of ##S##. In the latter case, one would have to include a factor of ##\Omega_S(E_n)## in the sum to take into account the degeneracy of states with energy ##E_n##.

See: "Statistical Physics" by David Tong

Statistical Physics - DAMTP

Yes, I think this question is clear now. What confused me is that I thought that microstate ##i## can be compatible with more than one energy state of system of interest ##E_i##. This really has no sense since microstate is an instantaneous configuration of particles over available energy states.

If energy of the system of interest changes, so do the available energy states of the particles which means that for every energy of the system of interest there is a unique set of microstates in which system may be.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Lord Jestocost

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 37 ·
2
Replies
37
Views
5K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
6K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K