Possible to derive Boltzmann distribution using W, not lnW?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the derivation of the Boltzmann distribution by maximizing the function W, defined as W = N!/(n1!n2!...nt!), instead of using lnW. The author explores the implications of using W directly under the constraints of constant particle number (g = ∑ni = N) and constant energy (h = ∑niεi = E). The application of Lagrange multipliers leads to a set of equations that ultimately question whether maximizing W yields the same results as maximizing lnW. The conclusion suggests that while both methods should theoretically provide the same distribution, practical difficulties arise when isolating ni without using lnW.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of statistical mechanics and thermodynamics
  • Familiarity with the Boltzmann distribution and its significance
  • Knowledge of Lagrange multipliers for constraint optimization
  • Proficiency in Stirling's approximation and its application in combinatorial problems
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the derivation of the Boltzmann distribution using Lagrange multipliers
  • Study the implications of Stirling's approximation in statistical mechanics
  • Explore the relationship between W and lnW in combinatorial contexts
  • Investigate alternative methods for maximizing functions under constraints in statistical physics
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, statisticians, and researchers in thermodynamics who are interested in the derivation and application of the Boltzmann distribution, as well as those exploring optimization techniques in statistical mechanics.

Darren73
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
Hi all, in following the many available derivations of the Boltzmann distribution I was trying to do it by maximizing W, which is N choose n1,n2,...nt., instead of lnW, because it should give the same answer (since W is monotonically increasing with lnW, am I wrong?).

So given the two constraint equations of constant particle number and energy, <br /> g=\sum_{i}n_{i}=N, <br /> <br /> h=\sum_{i}n_{i}\epsilon_{i}=E<br />And the Stirling approximation of W, <br /> W=N^{N}n_{1}^{-n_{1}}n_{2}^{-n_{2}}...n_{t}^{-n_{t}} <br />

And maximizing W with the above constraints (using Lagrange multipliers) gives the following t equations, <br /> \frac{\partial W}{\partial n_{i}}-\alpha\frac{\partial g}{\partial n_{i}}-\beta\frac{\partial h}{\partial n_{i}}=0 <br />

Which gives,<br /> \frac{\partial W}{\partial n_{i}}-\alpha-\beta\epsilon_{i}=0 <br /> <br /> \frac{\partial W}{\partial n_{i}}=C_{i}n_{i}^{n_{i}}\left(\ln n_{i}+1\right) <br /> C_{i}n_{i}^{n_{i}}\left(\ln n_{i}+1\right)=\alpha+\beta\epsilon_{i}

Where Ci is some constant of the other nj's and N. Proceeding from this point has proven fruitless for me to isolate ni and apply the constraints. Does anyone know if this can be done? Or do you have to use lnW? It would seem odd to me if this cannot be done by maximizing W directly. And they should give the same distribution, namely n_{i}=N\exp -\beta \epsilon_{i}, correct?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Given this long without a reply, perhaps a search at scholar.google.com would yield some insight.
 
I do not have a good working knowledge of physics yet. I tried to piece this together but after researching this, I couldn’t figure out the correct laws of physics to combine to develop a formula to answer this question. Ex. 1 - A moving object impacts a static object at a constant velocity. Ex. 2 - A moving object impacts a static object at the same velocity but is accelerating at the moment of impact. Assuming the mass of the objects is the same and the velocity at the moment of impact...

Similar threads

Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K