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!

I Partition Function and Degeneracy

  1. Dec 15, 2016 #1


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    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 [itex]\epsilon_i[/itex], then the grand canonical partition function (for noninteracting particles) is defined by:

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

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

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

    (because [itex]1+x+x^2 + ... = \frac{1}{1-x}[/itex])

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

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

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

    (2) Modify the allowable occupancy number [itex]N_i[/itex] to range from [itex]0[/itex] to [itex]g_i[/itex], 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 [itex]\epsilon_i[/itex].
  2. jcsd
  3. Dec 15, 2016 #2


    User Avatar
    2017 Award

    Staff: Mentor

    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.
  4. Dec 16, 2016 #3


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    Thank you.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?
Draft saved Draft deleted