Help with a partition function calculation

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

This discussion focuses on the calculation of the partition function for a spin-1/2 system in a magnetic field, specifically addressing the summation over normalized states versus eigenstates. The Hamiltonian is given by $$ \hat H = - B \hat S_z$$, and the partition function is derived as $$Z = \sum_{| \psi \rangle} \text{exp}[\frac {B \hbar \beta} {2} (2\alpha^2 - 1)]$$. The author initially encounters an inconsistency in the limit as temperature approaches infinity, leading to a non-zero net spin. After revising the approach to treat states equally, the corrected partition function yields the expected limits for net spin, confirming the initial treatment was flawed.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of quantum mechanics, particularly spin systems
  • Familiarity with partition functions in statistical mechanics
  • Knowledge of Hamiltonians and eigenstates
  • Experience with mathematical functions such as the error function and its imaginary counterpart, erfi
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation of partition functions in quantum statistical mechanics
  • Learn about the implications of summing over eigenstates versus normalized states
  • Explore the properties of the error function and its applications in quantum mechanics
  • Investigate the behavior of spin systems in varying magnetic fields and temperatures
USEFUL FOR

Quantum physicists, statistical mechanics researchers, and students studying quantum systems and their thermodynamic properties will benefit from this discussion.

hammer123
Messages
2
Reaction score
1
<Re-opening approved by mentor.>

Hi, I've always wondered why when calculating the partition function for a quantum system, we only sum over the eigenstates and not superimposed states. Thus I decided to actually try summing over all normalized states and see what would happen. Feedback is appreciated. (Updated result at the end)

Consider a spin-1/2 system immersed in a constant magnetic field ##B##, with the Hamiltonian
$$ \hat H = - B \hat S_z$$ Consider an arbitrary state decomposed in the eigenstates of ##\hat S_z##
$$| \psi \rangle = \alpha | + \rangle + \gamma e^{i \phi} | - \rangle $$ ##\alpha## and ##\gamma## are taken to be real and greater than zero. The expected energy for this state is $$E_{| \phi \rangle}=\langle \phi | \hat H| \phi \rangle = - \frac {B \hbar} {2} (\alpha^2 - \gamma^2)$$ Now consider the "all-states" partition function of this system, in which all states such as ##| \psi \rangle## are summed over. $$Z = \sum_{| \psi \rangle} \text{exp}[\frac {B \hbar \beta} {2} (\alpha^2 - \gamma^2)]$$ By normalization of ##| \psi \rangle##, this is $$ Z = \sum_{| \psi \rangle} \text{exp}[\frac {B \hbar \beta} {2} (2\alpha^2 - 1)]$$ Explicitly, $$Z = \int_0^{2\pi} \int_0^{1}\text{exp}[\frac {B \hbar \beta} {2} (2\alpha^2 - 1)] d\alpha d\phi$$ The ##\phi## integral is to account for the phase $$Z = 2 \pi ~\text{exp}(-\frac {B \hbar \beta}{2})\int_0^{1}\text{exp}[ {B \hbar \beta}\alpha^2] d\alpha$$ The mean spin in the ##z## direction is then $$\langle m_z \rangle = \frac {1}{\beta} \frac {\partial logZ} {\partial B} = -\frac {\hbar}{2} + \frac {\hbar\int_0^{1} \alpha^2 \text{exp}[ {B \hbar \beta}\alpha^2] d\alpha}{\int_0^{1} \text{exp}[ {B \hbar \beta}\alpha^2] d\alpha} $$ This can be expressed in terms of the ##\text{erfi}(x) = -i \text{erf}(ix)## functions $$\frac {\langle m_z \rangle}{\hbar} = \frac { e^\tau}{\sqrt {\pi \tau}\text{erfi}\sqrt{\tau}} -\frac {1+\tau}{2\tau} $$ where ##\tau = B\hbar\beta##. Can be shown that (according to mathematica)
$$\lim_{\tau \rightarrow \pm\infty} \langle m_z \rangle = \pm \frac {\hbar}{2}$$ Which is good as this corresponds to ## T \rightarrow 0##. However, it appears that $$\lim_{\tau \rightarrow 0} \langle m_z \rangle = -\frac{\hbar}{6}$$ which is not right since this corresponds to the ##T \rightarrow \infty## limit.

So my question is, did I make a mistake or was this entire thing invalid to start with?

Wolframalpha results for the limits:
##\tau\rightarrow-\infty##
##\tau\rightarrow\infty##
##\tau\rightarrow0##

UPDATE:
Okay, so it seems like my initial treatment distinguished the ##| + \rangle## state and that's what caused the non-zero net spin at ##T \rightarrow \infty##. However I'm not really sure why that was so, as far as I can tell I summed over all of the physically distinct states.
Whatever the case, to treat them equally I sum up the expressions for ##Z##, one with ##\gamma## removed and one with ##\alpha## removed$$Z = \sum_{| \psi \rangle} \text{exp}[\frac {B \hbar \beta} {2} (\alpha^2 - \gamma^2)]$$Using ##\alpha^2+\gamma^2=1## $$ =\frac{1}{2} \sum_{| \psi \rangle} \{\text{exp}[\frac {B \hbar \beta} {2} (2\alpha^2 - 1)]+\text{exp}[\frac {B \hbar \beta} {2} (1-2\gamma^2)]\}$$ $$ = \frac{1}{2}\int_0^{2\pi} \int_0^{1}\text{exp}[\frac {B \hbar \beta} {2} (2x^2 - 1)]+\text{exp}[\frac {B \hbar \beta} {2} (1-2x^2)] dx d\phi$$ $$= \pi ~\text{exp}(-\frac {B \hbar \beta}{2})\int_0^{1}\text{exp}[ {B \hbar \beta}\alpha^2] d\alpha+ \pi ~\text{exp}(\frac {B \hbar \beta}{2})\int_0^{1}\text{exp}[ {-B \hbar \beta}\gamma^2] d\gamma$$ The net spin is then $$\langle m_z \rangle = \frac{\hbar}{2}(\frac { e^\tau}{\sqrt {\pi \tau}\text{erfi}\sqrt{\tau}}+\frac { e^{-\tau}}{\sqrt {\pi \tau}\text{erf}\sqrt{\tau}}-\frac{1}{\tau})$$Where as before ##\tau = B\hbar\beta##. This function has the right limits $$\lim_{\tau \rightarrow \pm\infty} \langle m_z \rangle = \pm \frac {\hbar}{2}$$ and, more importantly $$\lim_{\tau \rightarrow 0} \langle m_z \rangle = 0$$ Compared to the net spin derived from only summing eigenstates, ##\langle m_z \rangle = \frac {\hbar}{2}\text{tanh}(\frac{\tau}{2})##, the one derived here converges to ##\pm \frac{\hbar}{2}## more slowly, as expected since the system has more degrees of freedom.Plot of the net spin compared to usual one
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: thephystudent
Physics news on Phys.org
:[Insert Plot of Net Spin] So it seems like my initial treatment was indeed incorrect. I hope this helps someone else who might be trying to do something similar.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
498
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K