B Question about the Boltzmann distribution

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the application of the Boltzmann distribution in calculating charge density for electrolyte solutions, specifically questioning the need for a normalization factor. It clarifies that the equation provided represents number density rather than a probability distribution, thus not requiring a normalization factor. The Boltzmann distribution is used to express the relative proportion of ions at a specific potential compared to the bulk solution. The analysis concludes that the density distribution can be derived correctly without the normalization factor, provided the total number of particles is considered. The conversation emphasizes understanding the role of the partition function in this context.
dRic2
Gold Member
Messages
887
Reaction score
225
I was reading about the Debye-Huckle theory for electrolytes solutions (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debye–Hückel_theory). In all the books, notes, and in the wikipedia age too, there is this statement that troubles me:

"Wikipedia" said:
calculate the charge density by means of a Boltzmann distribution:
$$n(r) = \bar n exp( \frac {-z_i e \psi(r)} {k_B T})$$

Shouldn't I have the "normalization factor" (i.e ##1/Z##) in the above equation?

Thanks Ric
 
Physics news on Phys.org
No. It is not a probability distribution but a number density of ions.
Peter Atkins (Physical Chemistry) writes:
The difference in energy of an ion j of charge ##z_je## at a position where the central ion i is giving rise to a potential ##\phi_i## relative to its energy at infinity (where the potential is zero) is ##\Delta E = z_je\phi_i##.
The Boltzmann distribution then gives the proportion of of ions at this location relative to the proportion in the bulk solution (effectively at infinity: $${{\mathcal N}_j\over {\mathcal N}_j^\circ}={ \text {
number of }{\sf j}\text{ ions per unit volume where the potential is }\phi_i \over \text {
number of }{\sf j}\text { ions per unit volume where the potential is zero}} \\ \mathstrut \\
=e^{-\Delta E/kT}\ , \ \ {\sf with} \quad \Delta E = z_je\phi_i\ .
$$This means that $$
{\mathcal N}_j/ {\mathcal N}_j^\circ =e^{- z_j e\phi_i/kT}\ . $$
 
  • Like
Likes dRic2 and vanhees71
Ahhh. So basically
$$n(r) = \frac N Z e^{-\beta z_i e \psi(r)}$$
is the mean number of particles in the state with energy ##z_i e \psi(r)## (where ##N## is the total number of particles in the system). Also
$$\bar n( \infty) = \frac N Z e^{- \beta z_i e \psi( \infty )} = \frac N Z$$
since ## \psi( \infty ) = 0##. Then:
$$ \frac {n(r)} {\bar n} = e^{-\beta z_i e \psi(r)}$$
The multiplying by ##\frac V V## I get the density distribution. Am I right ?
 
:rolleyes: Remind us what your capital ##Z## is in this context. I don't see it appear in the analysis
 
the partition function
 
Do you think my reasoning is correct ?
 
Thread 'Question about pressure of a liquid'
I am looking at pressure in liquids and I am testing my idea. The vertical tube is 100m, the contraption is filled with water. The vertical tube is very thin(maybe 1mm^2 cross section). The area of the base is ~100m^2. Will he top half be launched in the air if suddenly it cracked?- assuming its light enough. I want to test my idea that if I had a thin long ruber tube that I lifted up, then the pressure at "red lines" will be high and that the $force = pressure * area$ would be massive...
I feel it should be solvable we just need to find a perfect pattern, and there will be a general pattern since the forces acting are based on a single function, so..... you can't actually say it is unsolvable right? Cause imaging 3 bodies actually existed somwhere in this universe then nature isn't gonna wait till we predict it! And yea I have checked in many places that tiny changes cause large changes so it becomes chaos........ but still I just can't accept that it is impossible to solve...
Back
Top