Differences between Boltzmann and Fermi-Dirac distributions

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the differences between the Boltzmann distribution and the Fermi-Dirac/Bose-Einstein distributions, particularly in the context of their applications in various ensembles. Participants explore the applicability of these distributions to systems such as ideal gases and DNA molecules, as well as the implications for electrons in terms of chemical potential and temperature.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants note that the Boltzmann distribution is derived from the Canonical Ensemble, while Fermi-Dirac and Bose-Einstein distributions arise from the Grand Canonical ensemble.
  • There is a question about the applicability of the Boltzmann distribution to a DNA molecule, as it seems unrelated to volume or temperature, prompting discussions about the role of temperature in calculating probabilities.
  • One participant suggests that the Grand Canonical ensemble can be viewed as a method to account for quantum statistics, allowing for fluctuations in particle number while maintaining a fixed average.
  • Concerns are raised about the relevance of chemical potential for electrons, with a participant questioning whether it is defined for particles other than molecules and ions.
  • Another participant clarifies that chemical potential applies to any particle in a system where the number can fluctuate, including electrons in a mixture with neutral atoms and ions.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express varying levels of understanding regarding the application of the Boltzmann distribution to different systems, and there is no consensus on the role of chemical potential for electrons. The discussion remains unresolved on these points.

Contextual Notes

Participants mention that the Grand Canonical ensemble considers fixed temperature and fluctuating particle numbers, but the implications of these conditions for specific systems like DNA and electrons are still debated. Additionally, the definitions and relevance of chemical potential in different contexts are not fully settled.

Urmi Roy
Messages
743
Reaction score
1
Hi All,

In relation to the Boltzmann distribution vs the FD/BE distributions in different applications, I have 2 basic questions:

1. The Boltzmann distribution comes most easily from the Canonical Ensemble (constant N, V,T) while the FD/BE come from the Grand Canonical ensemble (constant .mu, V, T).

Intuitively, I picture the Boltzmann distribution being used for systems such as a container of an ideal gas. This makes sense to me, but in my h/w I got a question where I had to apply the Boltzmann distribution to a DNA molecule which increases energy by 'e' every time a bond breaks. I don't understand however how the Boltzmann distribution is applicable here, as this problem has nothing to do with V or T.

2. For an electron, I don't see why the grand canonical ensemble is applicable because I don't see how a 'chemical potential reservoir' is applicable to an electron nor how the temperature of an electron is fixed.

Please help me understand these concepts!U
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Urmi Roy said:
1. The Boltzmann distribution comes most easily from the Canonical Ensemble (constant N, V,T) while the FD/BE come from the Grand Canonical ensemble (constant .mu, V, T).

Intuitively, I picture the Boltzmann distribution being used for systems such as a container of an ideal gas. This makes sense to me, but in my h/w I got a question where I had to apply the Boltzmann distribution to a DNA molecule which increases energy by 'e' every time a bond breaks. I don't understand however how the Boltzmann distribution is applicable here, as this problem has nothing to do with V or T.
In the canonical ensemble, the system is connected to a reservoir at fixed T, with which it can exchange energy. Therefore, the system is taken at being at a fixed temperature, instead of a fixed energy. I guess that in the problem, you had to calculate probabilities of a DNA molecule being broken at a certain T.

Urmi Roy said:
2. For an electron, I don't see why the grand canonical ensemble is applicable because I don't see how a 'chemical potential reservoir' is applicable to an electron nor how the temperature of an electron is fixed.
Going to the grand canonical ensemble can be seen as a "trick" that allows to take into account the peculiarities of the quantum statistics. You can still work with a fixed number of particles by setting the chemical potential such that the total average number of particles is equal to the (fixed) desired number, with fluctuations too small to matter. As for temperature, it is the same thing: the system can exchange energy with a reservoir at a given T, and hence at equilibrium will also have a temperature T.
 
DrClaude said:
In the canonical ensemble, the system is connected to a reservoir at fixed T, with which it can exchange energy. Therefore, the system is taken at being at a fixed temperature, instead of a fixed energy. I guess that in the problem, you had to calculate probabilities of a DNA molecule being broken at a certain T.

Yup, you're absolutely right and I realize that now. I also find from my notes that the Grand canonical system also considers constant T but as you mentioned, it is a trick to restrict number of particles (by fixing the chemical potential= reservoir chem. potential). So is it true that for the DNA case, I could choose either the canonical or the grand canonical ensemble, since I'm not defining anything other than the T of the system...Volume doesn't make any sense here and number of particles N doesn't make sense either...I could write out the sum of probabilities, make it =1, and find the partition factor. It would result in a different distribution that looks a lot like the Boltzmann distribution, just with the mu in it.

DrClaude said:
Going to the grand canonical ensemble can be seen as a "trick" that allows to take into account the peculiarities of the quantum statistics. You can still work with a fixed number of particles by setting the chemical potential such that the total average number of particles is equal to the (fixed) desired number, with fluctuations too small to matter. As for temperature, it is the same thing: the system can exchange energy with a reservoir at a given T, and hence at equilibrium will also have a temperature T.

Ok so regarding an electron, I still understand what exactly the chemical potential of an electron is...isn't chemical potential defined for molecules and ions?

Thanks for your help, I think I'm getting there!
 
Urmi Roy said:
Ok so regarding an electron, I still understand what exactly the chemical potential of an electron is...isn't chemical potential defined for molecules and ions?
The chemical potential is defined for any particle that is part of the system, especially if its number can fluctuate. For example, in a mixture of neutral atoms and the corresponding ions and electrons, all three particle numbers will fluctuate as atoms get ionized and ions and electrons recombine into neutral atoms.
All three species will have a chemical potential, and the fraction of neutral atoms at equilibrium will depend on all three μ's.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
4K