Entropy of a System of Spin-half Non-interacting Particles

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The entropy of a system consisting of 1000 non-degenerate energy eigenstates populated by 1000 identical spin-zero particles and 2000 identical spin-half particles is calculated using the third law of thermodynamics, represented by the equation S=k_B ln W. For spin-zero particles, the entropy is S_{spin-0}=k_B (2N) ln 2, resulting in 1386 k_B. However, for spin-half particles, due to the Pauli exclusion principle, the arrangement leads to zero entropy, as there is only one way to arrange the fermions in the available states. Thus, the overall entropy of the system is zero.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of the third law of thermodynamics
  • Familiarity with Boltzmann's entropy formula
  • Knowledge of spin statistics (fermions vs bosons)
  • Proficiency in Stirling's approximation for factorials
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the implications of the Pauli exclusion principle on fermionic systems
  • Explore the differences in entropy calculations for bosons and fermions
  • Learn about non-degenerate vs degenerate energy states in quantum mechanics
  • Investigate the relationship between temperature and entropy in thermodynamic systems
USEFUL FOR

Students and researchers in advanced physics, particularly those focusing on statistical mechanics, quantum mechanics, and thermodynamics.

VSayantan
Messages
57
Reaction score
4

Homework Statement


A system having ##N## non-degenerate energy eigenstates populated by##N## identical spin-zero particles and ##2N## identical spin-half particles. There are no interaction between any of these particles. If ##N=1000## what is the entropy of the system?

Homework Equations


Third law of thermodynamics $$S=k_B \ln W$$
where ##S## is entropy, ##k_B## is the Botlzmann constant and ##W## is the thermodynamic probability.

Thermodynamic probability, i.e., the total number of independent ways of distributing ##N_i## particles in ##g_i## states is
for ##spin-integral## particles $$W= \prod_{i=1}^{n} {\frac {(N_i +g_i -1)!}{{N_i}! {(g_i -1)!}}}$$
for ##spin-half## particles $$W= \prod_{i=1}^{n} {\frac {{g_i}!}{{N_i}! {(g_i -N_i)!}}}$$

Stirling's formula $$\ln {n!} = n \ln n - n$$

The Attempt at a Solution


for ##spin-integral## particles $$W={\frac {(N+N -1)!}{{N}! {(N -1)!}}}$$
Simplifying $$W={\frac {(2N -1)!}{{N}! {N!}}}$$
That is approximately $$W={\frac {(2N)!} {{{N}!}^2}}$$
Thus $$S_{spin-0}=k_B \ln{\frac {(2N)!} {{(N!)}^2}}$$
$$\Rightarrow S_{spin-0}=k_B {[\ln {{(2N)!}-\ln {(N!)}^2}]}$$
$$\Rightarrow S_{spin-0}=k_B {[(2N) \ln {(2N)}-(2N)-2\ln {{N}!}]}$$
$$\Rightarrow S_{spin-0}=k_B {[(2N) \ln {(2N)}-(2N)-2N\ln {N} + 2N]}$$
$$\Rightarrow S_{spin-0}=k_B {(2N)[ \ln {(2N)}-\ln {N}]}$$
$$\Rightarrow S_{spin-0}=k_B {(2N) \ln 2}$$for ##spin-half## particles $$W={\frac {N!}{{(2N)}! {(N -2N)!}}}$$
Which gives a ##negative## factorial at the denominator!
So, does this mean one cannot distribute ##2N## spin-half particles in ##N## states?
Which sounds right, because of the Pauli exclusion principle.

Anyone have any thought?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Moderator's note: Moved to advanced physics homework forum.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: VSayantan
Is it possible that since a given energy state can accommodate two spin-half particles, at most, there is only one to distribute these ##2N## particles in ##N## states?
 
VSayantan said:
Is it possible that since a given energy state can accommodate two spin-half particles, at most, there is only one to distribute these ##2N## particles in ##N## states?

Yes, that is indeed possible, since it's the correct answer. :wink:

Now you need to consider the case of bosons (spin-integral particles): unlike fermions, multiple bosons can be in the same energy state, and in fact they are more likely to be in the same energy state. What does that do to the probability?
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: VSayantan
PeterDonis said:
Yes, that is indeed possible, since it's the correct answer. :wink:

Now you need to consider the case of bosons (spin-integral particles): unlike fermions, multiple bosons can be in the same energy state, and in fact they are more likely to be in the same energy state. What does that do to the probability?

For the bosons I've already calculated the entropy.
 
VSayantan said:
For the bosons I've already calculated the entropy.

In your calculation, you appeared to assume that the bosons had an equal probability of being in any of the ##N## states. But since the states are non-degenerate, one of them must have the lowest energy, and one would expect the ground state of the system to be one in which all of the bosons were in that lowest energy state. There is only one such arrangement.

One thing that's not clear, though, is whether the problem statement specifies a temperature for the system, or expects you to give the entropy as a function of the temperature. At a finite temperature, there will indeed be a nonzero probability of some of the bosons being in one of the energy states other than the lowest energy one.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: VSayantan
There are six options given
##13.82~k_B##
##693.1~k_B##
##zero##
##1000~k_B##
##5909.693~k_B##
##6909~k_B##

And no the question does not ask for entropy as a function of temperature.
Thanks for your suggestion @PeterDonis :bow:
 
VSayantan said:
There are six options given

Yes. Which one do you think is the right answer? Note that you've already shown that, for the fermions alone, the answer is zero (because that corresponds to there being only one way of arranging the particles).
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: VSayantan
PeterDonis said:
Yes. Which one do you think is the right answer? Note that you've already shown that, for the fermions alone, the answer is zero (because that corresponds to there being only one way of arranging the particles).

And you argued that that it is most probable for the bosons to occupy the same state. Which gives only one most probable arrangement, when there is no constraint of temperature involved.

So, I think you're right and zero is the correct choice, I think.
 
  • #10
VSayantan said:
I think you're right and zero is the correct choice

Another indication is that none of the choices match the answer you calculated in the OP for the bosons: ##k_B (2N) \ln 2## gives ##(2000) 0.693 k_B = 1386 k_B##.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: VSayantan
  • #11
PeterDonis said:
Another indication is that none of the choices match the answer you calculated in the OP for the bosons: ##k_B (2N) \ln 2## gives ##(2000) 0.693 k_B = 1386 k_B##.

Yes.
I tried to convince myself it was the closest answer (which would be a 100 times different than ##13.82~k_B##) before you suggested the one state population scenario.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
5K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
4K
Replies
4
Views
750
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K