1. Limited time only! Sign up for a free 30min personal tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Parition function for Boson gas with two quantum numbers

  1. Mar 25, 2014 #1
    Parition function for Boson "gas" with two quantum numbers

    Let's say that we have a system of non-interacting Bosons with single-particle energies given by,

    [itex] \epsilon_{p,m} = \frac{p^2}{2m} + \alpha m [/itex]

    where [itex] m = -j, ... ,j [/itex]

    and we want to calculate the partition function of this system. To do this, you would write,

    [tex] Z_N = \sum_{\{n(\vec{p},m)\}} \exp(-\beta \sum_{\vec{p},m} \epsilon_{p,m}n(\vec{p},m)) [/tex]

    Where [itex] n(\vec{p},m) [/itex] are the occupation numbers. From there, you would use the grand cannoncial formalism, and have that,

    [tex] Q = \sum_{N=0} e^{\beta \mu N} \sum_{\{n(\vec{p},m)\}} \exp(-\beta \sum_{\vec{p},m} \epsilon_{p,m}n(\vec{p},m)) [/tex]

    Assuming I haven't made any mistakes yet (and if I have PLEASE point them out!) I'm not sure how to evaluate this when there is double sums involved since, [itex] n(\vec{p},m) [/itex] can certainly be degenerate...

    I'm thinking I can just write this as,

    [tex] Q = \sum_ {\{n(\vec{p},m)\}} \prod_{\vec{p},m} \exp(-\beta(\epsilon_{p,m} - \mu )n(\vec{p},m)) [/tex]

    and then proceed as normal, but I'm really not sure... any stat-wizards out there want to help me out?
  2. jcsd
  3. Mar 26, 2014 #2
    So I think what I wrote above makes sense, so proceeding:

    Peform the sum over [itex] \{n(\vec{p} ,m)\} [/itex],
    [tex] Q = \prod_{\vec{p},m} [ 1 - \exp(-\beta(\epsilon_{p,m} - \mu )) ]^{-1} [/tex]
    [tex] \ln (Q) = -\sum_ {\vec{p},m} \ln( 1 - \exp(-\beta(\epsilon_{p,m} - \mu )) ) [/tex]

    and so,

    [tex] \langle n(\vec{p},m) \rangle = \frac{\partial \ln (Q) }{\partial ( \beta \epsilon_{p,m} )} = \frac{1}{z^{-1}e^{\beta\epsilon_{p,m}} - 1} [/tex]

    So we get essentially the same Bose-Einstein distribution, but now the average occupation number depends on both quantum numbers. Feel free to comment if you think this makes sense.
    Last edited: Mar 26, 2014
  4. Mar 26, 2014 #3


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2017 Award

    Yes it makes sense, but to use the canonical partition function first and then sum over the particle numbers for the grand-canonical one is pretty complicated. It's much simpler you start from the grand-canonical statistical operator right away,
    [tex]\hat{R}=\frac{1}{Z} \exp[-\beta(\hat{H}-\mu \hat{N})], \quad Z=\mathrm{Tr} \exp[-\beta(\hat{H}-\mu \hat{N})]. [/tex]
    Here [itex]\hat{N}[/itex] can be any conserved number (or charge) operator. Then you simply sum over all possible Fock states (occupation-number states) with [itex]n(\epsilon_{p,m}) \in \mathbb{N}_0[/itex], leading precisely to the result you've given in #2.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook