Partition function vs config integral

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the relationship between the partition function in classical statistical physics and its approximation using an integral over phase space. Participants explore the implications of discretization and the significance of the factors involved in this approximation.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the justification for approximating the partition function as an integral, expressing concern that the book does not adequately explain the choice of discretization factors.
  • Another participant suggests that constant factors like 1/(ΔxΔp) drop out when taking derivatives of log Z, indicating that the specific values of Δx and Δp may not be critical.
  • A participant points out that the logarithms of the two forms of the partition function (sum vs. integral) are not equal, highlighting a potential issue with the approximation.
  • It is noted that the approximation may not hold well at low temperatures due to the negligible contribution of higher energy states, while it could be more valid at higher temperatures.
  • One participant explains the Riemann integral and its relation to approximating sums, suggesting that this mathematical framework supports the transition from summation to integration.
  • Concerns are raised about how to determine appropriate values for Δx and Δp in the context of computing the partition function, with some arguing that these values may be insignificant due to the logarithmic operation.
  • There is a mention that ΔxΔp could be approximated by Planck's constant, linking the discussion to quantum effects.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the validity and implications of approximating the partition function as an integral. While some argue that the specific values of Δx and Δp are not significant, others remain uncertain about the appropriateness of the approximation and its dependence on temperature.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations in the approximation, particularly regarding the dependence on temperature and the potential inaccuracy at low temperatures. There is also a discussion on the mathematical steps involved in transitioning from sums to integrals, which remains unresolved.

aaaa202
Messages
1,144
Reaction score
2
In classical statistical physics we have the partition function:

Z=Ʃexp(-βEi)

But my book says you can approximate this with an integral over phase space:

Z=1/(ΔxΔp)3 ∫d3rd3p exp(-βE(r,t))

I agree that x and p are continuous variables. But who says that we are allowed to make this kind of discretization and what values are we choose for 1/(ΔxΔp)3 except for them being small?

I think my book is definitely hiding something from me, and using a rather lame argumentation in doing so.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
For the most part, it doesn't matter. Everything that matters with the partition function comes from derivatives of log Z, which means that constant factors like 1/(ΔxΔp) will drop out. I've seen some books argue that (ΔxΔp) could be taken as approximately h or hbar, since that is sort of the "scale" of quantum effects.
 
But ln(Z1) is not equal to ln(Z2) when Z1=Ʃexp(-βEi) and Z2=∫d3rd3p exp(-βE(r,t)) ?
 
Yeah, it's an approximation. So it won't be exactly equal.
 
still don't understand. Let's say you want the derivative of Ln(Z). Then you are saying that:
∂(Ʃexp(..))∂β ≈ ∂ln(∫exp(...))/∂β
 
Yes, because choices of Δx and Δp drop out of such derivatives.

Large sums can often be approximated by integrals (are you familiar with the Riemann integral). For a typical partition function this approximation is not going to be very good at low temperatures, which you can see it in the math just from the fact at low temperature the terms for higher energy states have a very tiny contribution to the summation. But at high enough temperatures, where many terms contribute to the summation an integral can be a good enough approximation.
 
Last edited:
Maybe this will be a little more clear. The Riemann definition of the integral is something like this:
[tex]\int_0^\infty f(x) dx = \lim_{\Delta x \rightarrow 0} \sum_{n = 0}^{\infty} f(n \Delta x) \Delta x[/tex]

Rewriting
[tex]\frac{1}{\Delta x}\int_0^\infty f(x) dx = \lim_{\Delta x \rightarrow 0} \sum_{n = 0}^{\infty} f(n \Delta x)[/tex]

You can make this into an appoximation by dropping the limit:
[tex]\frac{1}{\Delta x}\int_0^\infty f(x) dx \approx \sum_{n = 0}^{\infty} f(n \Delta x)[/tex]

This is often done the other way; the computation of an integral numerically on a computer is approximation as a summation.
 
okay makes sense. But since we are computing a partition function which sums over all states. How do we know what value to assign to Δx, or is this insignifanct as you say, because we are taking the log of Z?
 
Well, one argument is that ΔxΔp should be about h, since that is a quantity that gives a scale relevant to quantum effects. But yeah, it doesn't actually matter because we take the logarithms.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
8K