No. of choosing 4 atoms out of 10 atoms

  • Thread starter Thread starter Pushoam
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Atoms
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on calculating the number of ways to assign energy to four atoms chosen from a total of ten. It distinguishes between distinguishable and indistinguishable atoms, concluding that if indistinguishable, the number of arrangements is given by the formula 10*9*8*7 divided by 4*3*2*1. The conversation also explores various scenarios involving different types of atoms and their arrangements, emphasizing the complexity of distinguishing between them. The participants confirm the correctness of the calculations and assumptions made throughout the discussion. The topic highlights the importance of clarifying whether atoms are distinguishable or indistinguishable in such combinatorial problems.
Pushoam
Messages
961
Reaction score
53

Homework Statement



upload_2017-9-9_12-26-2.png

Homework Equations

The Attempt at a Solution


A) There is only one way to have 10 quanta of energy i.e. to have all atoms in higher states.
B) I have to decide no. of ways of assigning one units of energy to any 4 atoms. It's equivalent to choosing 4 atoms out of 10 atoms.
If the atoms are indistinguishable, the no. of ways of doing this is one .

If the atoms are distinguishable, then let's label each atom by one roman digits from i to x.
let's say that we have 4 different boxes A,B, C, D.
The total no. of ways in which we can put one atom in each box is 10*9*8*7.
When all of the boxes are indistinguishable,
let's consider one particular arrangement { (i, A) ,(ii, B ) ,( v,C) , (x,D)} among the 10*9*8*7 arrangements.
Since the boxes are indistinguishable, it doesn't matter whether the atom- i is in the box-A or box- B and so on.
When the boxes are distinguishable, there are 4*3*2*1 different ways of putting these four atoms into the four boxes.
When the boxes are made indistinguishable, these 4*3*2*1 different ways don't remain different. This happens with each set of four atoms in the 10*9*8*7 arrangements. Hence, the total no. of putting the atoms into four indistinguishable boxes is ## \frac {10*9*8*7}{4*3*2*1}##.
Since this case corresponds to the problem asked, total no. of distinct arrangements = ## \frac {10*9*8*7}{4*3*2*1}##.
Is this correct so far?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Yes, that is correct.
 
Thank you.
In the question, it is not said that the atoms are indistinguishable. I am assuming it. Is the assumption correct?
 
Since the question did not specify, they could be distinguishable or indistinguishable. It is insightful that you covered both cases. The distinguishable case would be where all atoms were different. In practice, it might be difficult to get ten distinguishable atoms in a box without them reacting with one another, as there are fewer than ten noble gases.

There are many other possibilities, for example three Neon atoms, three Argon and four Helium. That would give another, different calculation. It might be worth mentioning the other possibilities, but I wouldn't do the calcs for them. There are too many possibilities. You've covered the two most important ones.
 
  • Like
Likes Pushoam
andrewkirk said:
There are many other possibilities, for example three Neon atoms, three Argon and four Helium.
Let's consider the case when four of the ten atoms are same,
no. of arrangements in which all of the four atoms are different is ##{^7 C _4} ##.
no. of arrangements in which three atoms are different is ##{^6 C _2} ##
no. of arrangements in which two atoms are different is ##{^6 C _1} ##
no. of arrangements in which none of the four atoms are different is ##{^6 C _0} ##.
So, total no. of arrangements is ##{^7 C _4} + {^6 C _2}+{^6 C _1}+{^6 C _0} ##.
Is this correct?

.
 
Yes, that's correct.
 
  • Like
Likes Pushoam
Thank you for guiding me.
 
Pushoam said:
A) There is only one way to have 10 quanta of energy i.e. to have all atoms in higher states.

That's correct if you have to use all the energy "at your disposal". What if you don't?
 
CWatters said:
That's correct if you have to use all the energy "at your disposal". What if you don't?
That leads to a problem which is similar to the problem given in part (b), doesn't it?
 
Back
Top