Undergrad Partition Function and Degeneracy

Click For Summary
The discussion revolves around the grand canonical partition function for noninteracting particles, specifically addressing how to account for degeneracy in energy levels when considering electrons with independent spin states. Two methods are proposed: the first involves adjusting the summation to include degeneracy factors, effectively doubling the partition function, while the second modifies the occupancy number to allow for multiple electrons per state based on degeneracy. The key issue raised is the physical interpretation of these approaches, as they yield different results despite both seemingly addressing the same underlying concept of electron occupancy. The distinction lies in whether the spin states are treated as indistinguishable or as separate entities. Understanding this difference is crucial for accurately modeling the statistical mechanics of electron systems.
stevendaryl
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Insights Author
Messages
8,943
Reaction score
2,954
There doesn't seem to be a forum that is specifically about statistical mechanics, so I'm posting this question here. I apologize for the long-winded introduction, but I think it's needed to provide context for my question:

If you have a discrete collection of single-particle energy levels \epsilon_i, then the grand canonical partition function (for noninteracting particles) is defined by:

\mathcal{Z}(\mu, \beta) = \sum_i \sum_{N_i} exp(N_i \beta(\mu - \epsilon_i))
= \sum_i \sum_{N_i} exp(\beta(\mu - \epsilon_i))^{N_i}

where N_i is the occupancy number: the number of particles in state i. To get Bose statistics, the allowable values for N_i are N_i = 0, 1, 2, ..., leading to

\mathcal{Z}(\mu, \beta) = \sum_i \dfrac{1}{1 - exp(\beta(\mu - \epsilon_i))}

(because 1+x+x^2 + ... = \frac{1}{1-x})

For Fermi statistics, the only possible values for N_i are N_i = 0, 1, leading to:

\mathcal{Z}(\mu, \beta) = \sum_i (1 + exp(\beta(\mu - \epsilon_i)))

Here's the question: Suppose that the energy levels for an electron are independent of spin direction. That means that for every single-particle state, there is a second state with the same energy and opposite spin state. Then it seems to me that there are two different ways to take this degeneracy into account:

(1) Replace \sum_i ... by \sum_i g_i ..., where g_i is the degeneracy of energy level i, and where the index i ranges only over states with distinct energies. In this case, g_i = 2, so the result is just to multiple \mathcal{Z} by 2.

(2) Modify the allowable occupancy number N_i to range from 0 to g_i, rather than just 0 or 1.

These two approaches give different answers, but I don't understand, physically, why. It seems that the only thing that should be important is how many electrons can have energy \epsilon_i.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The second approach would require the states with the same number of electrons in such a state to be indistinguishable, but "electron up" and "electron down" are different things.
 
Thank you.
 
I do not have a good working knowledge of physics yet. I tried to piece this together but after researching this, I couldn’t figure out the correct laws of physics to combine to develop a formula to answer this question. Ex. 1 - A moving object impacts a static object at a constant velocity. Ex. 2 - A moving object impacts a static object at the same velocity but is accelerating at the moment of impact. Assuming the mass of the objects is the same and the velocity at the moment of impact...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K