Derivation of the partition function

[Mentz114]

Starting from the definition of energy levels $e_n$ and occupations $a_n$ and
the conditions $\sum_n a_n = N$ (2.2) and $\sum_n a_n e_n = E$ (2.3) where $N$ and $E$ are fixed I'm trying to find the distribution which extremizes the Shannon entropy.

Using the frequency $f_n=a_n/N$ and $S=\sum f_n\log(f_n)$ I need to solve the variation ( $\lambda$ and $\mu$ are Lagrange multipliers) $\delta\left(S+\lambda(\sum_n f_n-1) + \mu(\sum_n e_n f_n -E/N\right)=0$.
<br /> \begin{align*}<br /> \delta(S) &amp;= \sum \delta f_n\log(f_n) + \sum f_n \delta(\log(f_n) )\\<br /> &amp;\sum f_n \delta(\log(f_n) ) = \sum f_n (\delta f_n)/f_n=\sum \delta f_n<br /> \end{align*}<br />
and the total variation is
<br /> \begin{align*}<br /> \delta &amp;= (1+\lambda)\sum \delta f_n + \sum \delta f_n\log(f_n) + \mu\sum e_n\delta f_n<br /> \end{align*}<br />
Setting $\lambda=-1$ we are left with $\sum \delta f_n\log(f_n)=- \mu\sum e_n\delta f_n$ from which follows $a_n=Ne^{-\mu e_n}$.

This is the first time I've attempted a constrained variation so I'm not entirely confident that this is right. I hope it is because it is more satisfactory than methods^** that use Stirlings formula. Also $\lambda$ can be trivially eliminated.

The interpetation can now be made that the state derived has the greatest entropy/disorder of all possible states that satisfy the constraints. There is a physical connection which is absent if a probability is extremised, because probability has no physical analog, unlike entropy.

** This method extremises the log of $P=N!/\Pi a_n!$

 

[stevendaryl]

Starting from the definition of energy levels $e_n$ and occupations $a_n$ and
the conditions $\sum_n a_n = N$ (2.2) and $\sum_n a_n e_n = E$ (2.3) where $N$ and $E$ are fixed I'm trying to find the distribution which extremizes the Shannon entropy.

Using the frequency $f_n=a_n/N$ and $S=\sum f_n\log(f_n)$ I need to solve the variation ( $\lambda$ and $\mu$ are Lagrange multipliers) $\delta\left(S+\lambda(\sum_n f_n-N) + \mu(\sum_n e_n f_n -E\right)=0$.
<br /> \begin{align*}<br /> \delta(S) &amp;= \sum \delta f_n\log(f_n) + \sum f_n \delta(\log(f_n) )\\<br /> &amp;\sum f_n \delta(\log(f_n) ) = \sum f_n (\delta f_n)/f_n=\sum \delta f_n<br /> \end{align*}<br />
and the total variation is
<br /> \begin{align*}<br /> \delta &amp;= (1+\lambda)\sum \delta f_n + \sum \delta f_n\log(f_n) + \mu\sum e_n\delta f_n<br /> \end{align*}<br />
Setting $\lambda=-1$ we are left with $\sum \delta f_n\log(f_n)=- \mu\sum e_n\delta f_n$ from which follows $a_n=Ne^{-\mu e_n}$.

This is the first time I've attempted a constrained variation so I'm not entirely confident that this is right. I hope it is because it is more satisfactory than methods^** that use Stirlings formula. Also $\lambda$ can be trivially eliminated.

The interpetation can now be made that the state derived has the greatest entropy/disorder of all possible states that satisfy the constraints. There is a physical connection which is absent if a probability is extremised, because probability has no physical analog, unlike entropy.

** This method extremises the log of $P=N!/\Pi a_n!$

Looks good to me, except for a couple of points. Since you define $f_n$ as $a_n/N$, then

• $\sum_n f_n = 1$ (not $N$)
• $\sum_n e_n f_n = E/N$

Also, why can you set $\lambda = 1$? What you actually need is $\sum_n e^{-\lambda - \mu e_n} = 1$. So $e^\lambda = \sum_n e^{-\mu e_n}$

 

[Mentz114]

Looks good to me, except for a couple of points. Since you define $f_n$ as $a_n/N$, then

• $\sum_n f_n = 1$ (not $N$)
• $\sum_n e_n f_n = E/N$

Thanks for pointing that out. I have corrected the constraints. I switched from $a_n/N$ to $f_n$ for brevity and failed to update those expressions.

Also, why can you set $\lambda = 1$? What you actually need is $\sum_n e^{-\lambda - \mu e_n} = 1$. So $e^\lambda = \sum_n e^{-\mu e_n}$

I'm thinking about this. I thought I could solve for $\lambda$ and $\mu$ separately.

 

[Mentz114]

Looks good to me, except for a couple of points. Since you define $f_n$ as $a_n/N$, then

• $\sum_n f_n = 1$ (not $N$)
• $\sum_n e_n f_n = E/N$

Also, why can you set $\lambda = 1$? What you actually need is $\sum_n e^{-\lambda - \mu e_n} = 1$. So $e^\lambda = \sum_n e^{-\mu e_n}$

OK, the total variation $\ (1+\lambda)\sum \delta f_n + \sum \delta f_n\log(f_n) + \mu\sum e_n\delta f_n=0$ gives

$f_n = Ne^{-1-\lambda-\mu e_n}$. Which is not what I concluded. Does this mean that the state which extremises the Shannon entropy is not that given by the partition function. Clearly I need help or to read some more. Any suggestions ?

 

[stevendaryl]

OK, the total variation $\ (1+\lambda)\sum \delta f_n + \sum \delta f_n\log(f_n) + \mu\sum e_n\delta f_n=0$ gives

$f_n = Ne^{-1-\lambda-\mu e_n}$. Which is not what I concluded. Does this mean that the state which extremises the Shannon entropy is not that given by the partition function. Clearly I need help or to read some more. Any suggestions ?

I think it's correct. Your parameter $\mu$ should be equal to the Boltzmann factor $\frac{1}{kT}$. Your parameter $(-1-\lambda)$ will be equal to $\frac{\mu_{cp}}{kT}$ where $\mu_{cp}$ is the chemical potential. So your $f$ would then be $e^{-\frac{e_n - \mu}{kT}}$

 

[Mentz114]

I think it's correct. Your parameter $\mu$ should be equal to the Boltzmann factor $\frac{1}{kT}$. Your parameter $(-1-\lambda)$ will be equal to $\frac{\mu_{cp}}{kT}$ where $\mu_{cp}$ is the chemical potential. So your $f$ would then be $e^{-\frac{e_n - \mu}{kT}}$

Yes, that can be deduced from mixing and additivity once the variation is solved.

The variation I wrote seems to be correct because (the original) $\sum e^{-\lambda - \mu e_n}=N$ and (for the frequencies) $\sum e^{-1 -\lambda - \mu e_n}=1$ are the same in that we can solve for $e^{-\lambda}$ or $e^{-1-\lambda}$ and on substituting into the second constraint the equation is satisfied.

Now understand how $\lambda$ was eliminated in the derivation I'm reading ^** this is straightforward.

Thanks for pointing me in right direction.

[edit]
From $f_n = e^{-1-\lambda-\mu e_n}$ using the first constraint $\sum_n f_n=\sum_n e^{-1-\lambda-\mu e_n}=1$ we find the value of $e^{-1-\lambda}$ to be $1/\sum e^{-\mu e_n}$. Substituting into the second constraint gives $\sum e_n e^{-\mu e_n}/\sum e^{-\mu e_n}$ which is the expected value of the energy $E/N$. Both constraints are thus satisfied.**
Erwin Schrödinger, Statistical Thermodynamics, Dover (1952)