Negative amount of particles in statistical mechanics

AI Thread Summary
In statistical mechanics, it is possible to have a calculated number of particles, N, that is negative or non-integer while the actual number remains a positive integer. This scenario arises in grand canonical ensembles where the chemical potential, μ, influences the internal energy per particle. The discussion highlights the distinction between statistical representations and physical quantities, suggesting that negative particle numbers could conceptually relate to phenomena like dark matter. The conversation also emphasizes the importance of considering the ensemble average and the implications of using the thermodynamic potential, Ω, in calculations. Ultimately, the interpretation of negative particle numbers depends on the specific system being analyzed.
Catria
Messages
145
Reaction score
4
Suppose that you have N = \left(\frac{\partial U}{\partial \mu}\right)_{S,V} < 0, supposedly the number of particles, even though the actual number of particles is greater than zero. This means that you can have, in a system subjected to a grand canonical ensemble, less than 0 particle for statistical physics purposes (or less catastrophically a non-integer number of particles), yet the actual number of particles is an integer greater than 0. Or would it otherwise mean that negative numbers of particles are physically possible (albeit as dark matter since standard model particles have all been detected in positive numbers)?

I fail to understand how can the stat-mech number of particles, which can be non-integer, or negative even, represent something different from an actual physical quantity. I knew \mu represented the internal energy per particle, however.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Catria said:
Suppose that you have ##N = \left(\frac{\partial U}{\partial \mu}\right)_{S,V} < 0##, supposedly the number of particles, even though the actual number of particles is greater than zero.

Do you have an actual case in mind where this happens? Or a reference describing one?
 
Don't you habe to consider ##\Omega=U-\mu N## instead of U? Remember that you are considering an ensemble average, so fractional numbers aren't that peculiar. Whether negative values for N Marke sense vor not, depends on the system, e.g. considering positrons AS negative amount oft electrons.
 
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
Back
Top