Partition Function Derivation: Where Did I Go Wrong?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the derivation of the partition function and its relationship with the Boltzmann factor in thermal physics, specifically referencing Schroeder's Intro to Thermal Physics. The user expresses confusion over the manipulation of equations leading to the conclusion that the number of accessible microstates, denoted as Ω(E), equates to the Boltzmann factor, e^{-E \beta}. The user identifies a potential error in equating Ω(E) with degeneracy and seeks clarification on the steps involved and the ensemble being used. The conversation highlights the importance of correctly interpreting the relationship between energy, entropy, and microstates.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of the Boltzmann factor and its formulation, e^{-E \beta}
  • Familiarity with the first law of thermodynamics and its implications for entropy and internal energy
  • Knowledge of statistical mechanics concepts, particularly microstates and macrostates
  • Basic grasp of isothermal processes and their characteristics in thermodynamics
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation and implications of the partition function in statistical mechanics
  • Explore the relationship between entropy and the number of microstates in greater detail
  • Investigate the differences between degeneracy and the number of accessible microstates
  • Learn about different ensembles in statistical mechanics, such as canonical and grand canonical ensembles
USEFUL FOR

Students and professionals in physics, particularly those studying thermodynamics and statistical mechanics, as well as researchers seeking to clarify concepts related to the partition function and microstate analysis.

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.
 
Science 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.​
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K