# Multiplicity of an Einstein solid

• zezima1
In summary, A solid composed of N quantum harmonic oscillators can store evenly spaced energy units q. The multiplicity, Ω, of an einstein solid is given by the binomial coefficient C(q+N-1,q). However, this can be approximated to (q+N)!/(q!*N!) by neglecting the 1 in q+N-1 and using Stirling's formula. This approximation is justified because the ratio of N! to (N-1)! is only a large factor N, which is negligible compared to ln Ω. This is important because ln Ω is what matters in statistical mechanics and is defined as the entropy.
zezima1
Okay, I am not sure if this is the right subforum, but here goes:

An einstein solid is a solid composed of N quantum harmonic oscillators, which can store evenly spaced energy units q.

Now suppose we have an einstein solid of N oscillators with q energy units, where q>>N. My book wants to derive an expression for the multiplicity of this solid, but I can't quite follow the approximations leading to the final expression:

We have in general that that the multiplicity, Ω, of an einstein solid is given by the binomial:

Ω = C(q+N-1,q) , where C() is the binomial coefficient. I won't verify this expression, because it is the approximations of it that bother me:

In general we have from the definition of the binomial coefficient:

Ω = C(q+N-1,q) = (q+N-1)!/((N-1)!*q!)

My book approximates this to:

Ω = (q+N)!/(q!*N!)

with the argument that: "The ratio of N! to (N-1)! is only a large factor (N).

I don't see what this has to do with the approximation. The multiplicity above gets far bigger with the approximation because it all depends on q.

For instance, say q=100 and N=2. Then you get:

Ωreal = 101!/100! = 101
Ωapprox = 102!/2! ≈ 50*Ωreal
or i general for N=2:
Ωapprox = q/2 * Ωapprox

So in general how is this approximation valid? Am I plugging the numbers in the wrong way?

In the cases we're usually interested in, it's not just the number, q, of quanta that is huge, but the number, N, of oscillators as well. That's why it's permissible not to worry about the '1'.

hmm yes but the approximation assumes that q>>N. So even though N is large won't the factor still be quite large because q is very large?

(1) Where is the assumption made that q>>N?
(2) Omitting a factor of N doesn't matter, as long as the percentage difference made to ln Ω is negligible – which it will be, if N is huge. The use of Stirling's formula, for both N! and q! is also justified by this criterion, provided N and q are both huge. There is no need, as far as I know, for q>>N.

This is just the first part of the approximation. The next part exactly uses that q>>N to simplify further. But indeed you are right that while q is a VERY LARGE NUMBER N is also just a large number. What difference does it make? Maybe your are actually dividing q/N! so is that why it becomes negligible?
I just don't understand the explanation:
"The ratio of N! to (N-1)! is only a large factor (N)."

Last edited:
As Philip pointed out, what you're eventually interested in is ln(Ω), and even this is going to be a large number. Large, in fact, compared with ln(q) and ln(N).
A factor N in Ω turns into an addition of ln(N) on ln(Ω), and the effect of that is small.

haruspex said:
A factor N in Ω turns into an addition of ln(N) on ln(Ω), and the effect of that is small.

ITS NOT JUST A FACTOR OF N :( Try for q=100 and N=2 and for q=1000 and N=2. The factor is q/N and that is a very large number, because q>>N.

Can't quite see what you're driving at here.
(1) Still can't see why you think the ratio q/N is important. You say your book goes on to make this assumption, but it isn't required in order to neglect the 1, nor to apply Stirling's formula.
(2) All approximations fail hopelessly if you take N as 2. The approximations start to become plausible (in my opinion) for N greater than 50 (and q greater than 50), though with N and q as large as they usually are in the cases we deal with, the approximations are hardly approximations at all.

See attached sheet for more detail.

#### Attachments

• stirling.jpg
23.7 KB · Views: 700
hmm... I definitely must be making some kind of basic mistake, because I can't get the approximation to make sense. So let us try to do it for two large numbers for q and N and you can point out what I do wrong:

We have:

Ωreal = (q+N-1)!/((N-1)!*q!)
Ωapprox = (q+N)!/(N!*q!)

Let N=1023and q=10100. These are both large numbers with q>>N.
Now plug into the two expressions:

Ωreal = (10100+1023-1)!/((1023-1)!*10100!)

Ωapprox = (10100+1023)!/((1023)!*10100!) = 10100/1023 * (10100+1023-1)!/((1023-1)!*10100!) = 1077 * Ωreal

How is this factor just a negligible term? And what has this term got to do with the reason ""The ratio of N! to (N-1)! is only a large factor (N).", which is how the author of my book defends the approximation..?

Thank you for explaining the problem so clearly. The answer, I'm afraid is still more or less the same as before, but at least you've enabled me to explain it better...

You might think that $10^{77}$ is a large number. Compared to Ω it is tiny.

The easiest way to see this is by taking logs. Taking logs is important anyway, because it turns out that ln Ω is what matters in statistical mechanics.

Because your q is so vastly larger than N (I still don't know why you insist on this, but I'll just live with it!) we need to do some preliminary work on your top factorial. Can you see that since q>>N, then $(N+q)! = (q^N) q!$ to a very good approximation?

This means that your approximate Ω becomes $\frac{q^N}{N!}$

Using stirling's formula, the log your approximate Ω is

$$ln \Omega =N ln q – N ln N + N = 10^{23} (230 – 53 + 1)$$

This is very much larger than ln 1077, which is a mere 177. [I almost put an exclamation mark at the end of the last sentence!]

Hmm yes, I see it now :) Thanks...

Let me ask you something else though:
You say ln are what matters in statistical mechanics. And indeed entropy etc. are defined as lnΩ etc., which was kind of odd in the beginning and still is. Are these definitions merely made because ln is much easier to work with or is there more to it?

There's more to it; the ln function arises naturally in considering thermal equilibrium. [I do sometimes catch myself wondering how nature knows about the log function, but this is probably a pretty silly worry.]

Mandl ('Statistical Physics') sets out the framework of statistical mechanics cleanly and clearly, though there are plenty of other books to choose from!

It arises naturally? I can't see why at this point:

If we say that we define something call entropy to make it easier to work with the multiplicity then so far:
S = klnΩ

In thermal equilibrium of two systems we want ∂S/∂U to be the same for the highest multiplicity. This allows us to define the temperature:

1/T = ∂S/∂U

But all these are definitions, so what comes naturally? I admit the k is kind of weird, I never understood that. Also I have heard people say S = klnΩ is a postulate but I don't see why it can't just be a definition.

Either way I guess Ima go check if the library at uni has that book.

aaaa202 said:
ITS NOT JUST A FACTOR OF N :( Try for q=100 and N=2 and for q=1000 and N=2. The factor is q/N and that is a very large number, because q>>N.

Sure, but it's the same argument. Multiplying Ω by q/N is equivalent to adding ln(q/N) to ln(Ω), and ln(q/N) is much smaller than ln(Ω).

Entropy is extensive and additive.

But are all the following formulas definition because additivity and small numbers are practical:

S = klnΩ

1/T = ∂S/∂U

P = T ∂S/∂V

or do they arise naturally? I think your individual answers are kind of talking against each other. Also can someone tell me what the k in front of lnΩ is supposed to mean?

aaaa202 said:
But are all the following formulas definition because additivity and small numbers are practical:

S = klnΩ

1/T = ∂S/∂U

P = T ∂S/∂V

or do they arise naturally? I think your individual answers are kind of talking against each other. Also can someone tell me what the k in front of lnΩ is supposed to mean?

Entropy, internal energy, temperature and the like had all been defined long before the advent of statistical mechanics.
Also the second and third formula was known before.
The factor k in the first equation is just a conversion factor for statistical entropy to have the same units as thermodynamical entropy.

## 1. What is an Einstein solid?

An Einstein solid is a theoretical model used in statistical mechanics to study the behavior of a system of particles that are confined to a finite number of energy levels.

## 2. What is the "multiplicity" of an Einstein solid?

The multiplicity of an Einstein solid refers to the number of different ways in which the particles can be distributed among the energy levels, while still maintaining a constant total energy for the system.

## 3. How is the multiplicity of an Einstein solid calculated?

The multiplicity is calculated using the formula Ω = (N+q-1)!/(q!(N-1)!), where N is the total number of particles and q is the number of energy levels.

## 4. What does the multiplicity of an Einstein solid tell us about the system?

The multiplicity reflects the number of microstates (or possible arrangements) of the particles within the system, and is therefore related to the entropy of the system.

## 5. How does the multiplicity of an Einstein solid change with an increase in energy or particles?

The multiplicity will increase with an increase in either energy or particles, as there are more ways for the system to distribute the particles among the energy levels. However, the rate of increase will depend on the specific values of N and q.

Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
6K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
958
Replies
19
Views
753
Replies
1
Views
828