I Partition function for continuous spectrum

HomogenousCow
Messages
736
Reaction score
213
Let's say that we have a one-particle Hamiltonian that admits only a continuous spectrum of eigenvalues ##E(k)=\alpha k^2## parameterized by asymptotic momentum ##\mathbf{k}## (assuming the eigenfunctions become planewaves far from the origin), would the partition function then be $$Z=\int d^{3}k e^{-\beta \alpha k^2}$$? This feels odd to me because it would imply that all continuum spectras have the same partition function. Is this true or have I forgotten about something?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You have forgotten that ##Z## is a function of the variable ##\beta##, while ##\alpha## is a parameter. Different kinds of particles have different ##\alpha##.
 
This is the one-particle partition sum for a free non-relativistic particle. Of course, ##\alpha=1/(2m)##. For a classical ideal gas of ##N## partices you simply have ##Z_N=Z^N/N!##, where I borrowed the ##1/N!## from the quantum theoretical indistinguishability of particles; this is the minimal input from quantum mechanics you need to avoid inconsistencies like Gibbs's paradoxon.

For the full quantum-mechanical treatment of the ideal gas you need to take into account the bosonic or fermionic nature of the particles. That's best done in the occupation-number representation and by first using a finite volume. You can take any boundary conditions you like, because those get unimportant in the infinite-volume/thermodynamical limit). Choosing periodic boundary conditions with the volume being a cube of length, ##L## your single-particle momentum spectrum is ##\vec{k} \in 2 \pi \hbar/L \mathbb{Z}##, and in the grand-canonical ensemble you get:

Fermions:

There for each ##\vec{k}## and each spin you have ##N(\vec{k},\sigma) \in \{0,1 \}##. So your partition sum is
$$Z(\beta,\mu)=\prod_{\vec{k},\sigma} \sum_{N=0}^1 \exp[N(-\beta \vec{k}^2/(2m) + \beta \mu)] = \prod_{\vec{k}} [1+\exp(-\beta \vec{k}^2/(2m)+\beta \mu)]^{2s+1}.$$
Where ##s## is the spin of the particle (from relativistic QFT we know it must be half-integer for fermions).

Bosons:

For bosons the calculation is the same but for each ##(\vec{k},\sigma)## the occupation numbers ##N(\vec{k},\sigma) \in \mathbb{N}_0##. This gives
$$Z(\beta,\mu)=\prod_{\vec{k},\sigma} \sum_{N=0}^{\infty} \exp[N(-\beta \vec{k}^2/(2m) + \beta \mu)] = \prod_{\vec{k}} [1-\exp(-\beta \vec{k}^2/(2m)+\beta \mu)]^{-(2s+1)}.$$
Note that here you necessarily must have ##\mu<0##, because otherwise the geometric series wouldn't converge (at least for ##\vec{k}=0##).

The thermodynamic/infinite-volume limit is simple for fermions. You consider the logarithm of ##Z##, and the resulting sum over the momenta can be approximated by an integral:
$$\sum_{\vec{k}} \simeq L^3 \int \mathrm{d}^3 k/(2 \pi \hbar)^3,$$
because in a momentum-volume element ##\Delta^3 k## there are ##\Delta^3 k L^3/(2 \pi \hbar)^3## single-particle momentum eigenstates.

This leads to
$$\ln Z=\frac{(2s+1) V}{(2 \pi \hbar)^3} \int_{\mathbb{R}^3} \mathrm{d}^3 k \ln[1+\exp(-\beta \vec{k}^2/(2m)+\beta \mu)].$$
For bosons the thermodynamic limit is subtle, because the ground state must be considered separately. Before you go the infinite-volume limit, keeping the discrete momenta there is no problem. You just get a sum, and if you try to fix the particle number at a given temperature by choosing an appropriate ##\mu<0##, you can get any particle number you want, because for ##\mu \rightarrow -0^{+}## the particle number diverges, i.e., you can accommodate as many particle you like at any given ##T##. In the limit ##T \rightarrow 0## you get that all particles are in the ground state (Bose-Einstein condensate).

If you go over to the infinite-volume limit, the total particle number does not diverge anymore for ##\mu \rightarrow -0^+##. So if you naively approximate the sum with the integral you miss the zero-mode contribution. So the correct approximation is to take the zero-mode out and only for the rest you approximate with the integral. Then you get
$$\ln Z=-(2s+1) \ln[1-\exp(\beta \mu)] -\frac{(2s+1)V}{(2 \pi \hbar)^3} \int_{\mathbb{R}^3} \ln [1-\exp(-\vec{k}^2/(2m)+\mu \beta].$$
To get the (average) particle number you have to set ##\mu \beta=\alpha##, differentiate wrt. ##\alpha## and then set ##\alpha=\mu \beta## again. This gives
$$N=\frac{2s+1}{\exp(-\mu \beta)-1} + \frac{(2s+1) V}{(2 \pi \hbar)^3} \int_{\mathbb{R}^3} \mathrm{d}^3 k \frac{1}{\exp(\beta \vec{k}^2/(2m)-\mu \beta)-1}.$$
The correct infinite-volume limit now is to divide this by ##V## to get the particle-number density ##n=N/V##. Then for a given ##T## you keep ##n## fixed and take ##V \rightarrow \infty##. Then there are two cases

(a) "Normal state"

$$n < \frac{(2s+1) V}{(2 \pi \hbar)^3} \int_{\mathbb{R}^3} \mathrm{d}^3 k \frac{1}{\exp(\beta \vec{k}^2/(2m))-1} = n_{>}. \qquad (*)$$
Then you choose ##\mu<0## such that
$$n=\frac{(2s+1) V}{(2 \pi \hbar)^3} \int_{\mathbb{R}^3} \mathrm{d}^3 k \frac{1}{\exp(\beta \vec{k}^2/(2m)-\mu \beta)-1}.$$
Making then ##V \rightarrow \infty## at fixed ##\beta## and ##\mu##, the contribution from the zero mode obviously vanishes.

(b) "Condensate state"

If (*) is not fulfilled, then you set ##\mu=0## in the integral. In the zero-mode contribution you make ##V \rightarrow \infty## and ##\mu \rightarrow -0^+## such that this expression stays constant at
$$n_0=n-n_{>}.$$

This is a state, where a macroscopically relevant portion of the particles occupies the ground state at ##\vec{k}=0##, i.e., you have a Bose-Einstein condensate in addition to a "normal" (degenerate) Bose gas. For ##T \rightarrow 0## all particles occupy the ground state.

This problem with the particle-number density never occurs of course for fermions, because there you can choose ##\mu \in \mathbb{R}## arbitrarily, and thus you can choose ##\mu## always such that the integral at a given ##T## gives any particle-number density you like by adjustint ##\mu##.
 
  • Like
Likes dextercioby and gentzen
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
If we release an electron around a positively charged sphere, the initial state of electron is a linear combination of Hydrogen-like states. According to quantum mechanics, evolution of time would not change this initial state because the potential is time independent. However, classically we expect the electron to collide with the sphere. So, it seems that the quantum and classics predict different behaviours!

Similar threads

Back
Top