I Partition Function Derivation: Where Did I Go Wrong?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around confusion regarding the application of thermodynamic equations from Schroeder's Intro to Thermal Physics, particularly concerning the Boltzmann factor and the relationship between energy, entropy, and the number of microstates. The poster grapples with deriving the Boltzmann factor from their manipulations but questions the validity of their conclusions, especially regarding the total number of accessible microstates and the definition of Omega. They express uncertainty about the distinction between Omega and degeneracy, suspecting a fundamental misunderstanding in their calculations. Additionally, there is a query about the first law of thermodynamics and its implications for isothermal processes. Overall, the poster seeks clarification on these thermodynamic concepts and their correct application.
thelaxiankey
Messages
5
Reaction score
1
Self-repost from physics.SE; I underestimated how dead it was.

So this follows Schroeder's Intro to Thermal Physics equations 6.1-6.7, but the question isn't book specific. Please let me be clear: I know for a fact I'm wrong. However, it feels like performing seemingly allowed manipulations, I arrive at an incorrect conclusion... what gives?

We say that:

$$ \text{Boltzmann factor} = e^{-E \beta} $$

Where $$ \beta = 1/k_b T$$

But we know by the 1st law that $$ dS_R = dU / T$$ (All the other terms are 0 or negligible). So, for isothermic situations, $$ U = TS$$ Additionally, $$ S(E) = k_b \ln \Omega(E) $$ (all of these are used by Schroeder so I think they're right), and then:

$$ E = -U = -T k_b \ln(\Omega(E))$$

And if we solve for omega, we get:

$$\Omega(E) = e^{-E / (k_b T)} = e^{-E \beta} = \text{Boltzmann factor} $$

But this is nowhere mentioned in the book, and seems important and/or horribly wrong! Moreover, this means that $$ Z = \text{ Total # of accessible microstates at all energies} $$ Which is also nowhere mentioned, and feels very important! Where did I go wrong? This feels very important and yet doesn't seem to be mentioned... anywhere.

This all falls apart even harder with the magnetic dipole example, because we start to get stuff like:

$$ P(E) = \frac{ e^{-E \beta} \Omega(E) }{Z} = \frac{\Omega^2(E)}{\text{Total # of Microstates}} $$

I suspect that in this case the error is due to the fact $\Omega(E) \neq \text{Degeneracy}(E)$, but I'm not sure about that, because it seems to indicate that the $\Omega$ represents something that isn't the number of microstates, but some other number entirely.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Could you explain a bit more what you are doing at the different steps? Also, in what ensemble are you working?
 
Michael Sandler said:
But we know by the 1st law that
dSR=dU/T Why is this so? No work done?​
(All the other terms are 0 or negligible). So, for isothermic situations, (Is that an isothermal process?)
U=TS These are functions of state, so this equation is describing a state, and not a process.​
 
Thread 'Question about pressure of a liquid'
I am looking at pressure in liquids and I am testing my idea. The vertical tube is 100m, the contraption is filled with water. The vertical tube is very thin(maybe 1mm^2 cross section). The area of the base is ~100m^2. Will he top half be launched in the air if suddenly it cracked?- assuming its light enough. I want to test my idea that if I had a thin long ruber tube that I lifted up, then the pressure at "red lines" will be high and that the $force = pressure * area$ would be massive...
I feel it should be solvable we just need to find a perfect pattern, and there will be a general pattern since the forces acting are based on a single function, so..... you can't actually say it is unsolvable right? Cause imaging 3 bodies actually existed somwhere in this universe then nature isn't gonna wait till we predict it! And yea I have checked in many places that tiny changes cause large changes so it becomes chaos........ but still I just can't accept that it is impossible to solve...
Back
Top