Partition Function for N Quantum Oscillators

Click For Summary
The discussion revolves around finding the partition function for N quantum harmonic oscillators, given the energy levels E(n) = hw(n+1/2). The confusion arises regarding the application of the partition function equations, particularly ZN = (ZN)/N! for indistinguishable particles, and ZN = ZN for distinguishable particles. The poster is uncertain whether the oscillators, which can occupy the same energy levels, complicate the calculation and lead to potential over-counting of states. They seek clarification on the correct approach to derive the partition function for this system. The conversation highlights the complexities of applying statistical mechanics principles to quantum systems.
Daniel Sellers
Messages
117
Reaction score
17

Homework Statement


For 300 level Statistical Mechanics, we are asked to find the partition function for a Quantum Harmonic Oscillator with energy levels E(n) = hw(n+1/2). No big deal.

We are then asked to find the partition function N such oscillators. Here I am confused.

Homework Equations



ZN = (ZN)/N! Where Z is the partition function for a single oscillator or particle.

This equation shows up a lot when I look for information on partition functions for N particles, but it seems to only apply when the particles are indistinguishable, non-interacting, and unlikely to occupy the same energy levels, basically an ideal gas. A system of oscillators seems to meet only one of these conditions (indistinguishable).

ZN = ZN

This also shows up a lot but only in the context of distinguishable particles.

The Attempt at a Solution


I have tried to search for as many sources as possible and reason my way through this problem, but I can't come up with an answer in which I am confident.

Can anyone provide an answer and convince me that it is correct? Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Perhaps I'm overthinking this? If the oscillators are allowed to occupy the same energy levels then the partition function (which I understand to be the sum of probabilities of all possible states of the system) would simply be a string of statistical 'and' statements. So I could say that ZN = ZN?

Thoughts? Anyone want to tell me I'm wrong? Is there some subtlety I'm missing involving over-counting states with the same energy level distributions?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K