Stirling's approximation/Multiplicity

  • Thread starter Thread starter JaWiB
  • Start date Start date
Join the discussion
Ask a follow-up here, or get your own question answered by working scientists, mathematicians and engineers — people, not an autocomplete.
Real named experts · corrections over time · the nuance an AI answer skips
1 reply · 9K views
JaWiB
Messages
283
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


For a single large two-state paramagnet, the multiplicity function is very sharply peaked about [tex]N_{\uparrow} = N/2[/tex]

a) Use Stirling's approximation to estimate the height of the peak in the multiplicity function.

b) Use the methods in this section to derive a formula for the multiplicity function in the vicinity of the peak, in terms of [tex]x \equiv N_{\uparrow} - (N/2)[/tex] Check that your formula agrees with your answer to part (a) when x = 0.

c) How wide is the peak in the multiplicity function?

Homework Equations



Stirling's approximation: [tex]ln(N!) = N ln(N) - N[/tex]

# of microstates = [tex]\frac{N!}{N_{\uparrow}!N_{\downarrow}!}[/tex]

The Attempt at a Solution



The first question seems simple enough; I'll just plug in N/2:
[tex]ln \Omega = ln(N!) - ln((N/2)!) - ln((N/2)!)[/tex]
[tex]ln \Omega \approx Nln(N) - N - 2((N/2)ln(N/2)-N/2) = Nln(N)-Nln(N/2) = Nln(2)[/tex]

So the answer to (a) is 2^N. This seems problematic though because I think 2^N should be the total number of microstates for all macrostates, not just the macrostate where half the dipoles are "up"...Do I need to include the [tex]\sqrt{2{\pi}N}[/tex] term in Stirling's approximation?

For (b), I managed to get the formula:
[tex]\Omega = N^N[(N/2+x)(N/2-x)]^{-N/2}(\frac{N/2-x}{N/2+x})^x[/tex]
which does give me 2^N where x=0, but I expected to get a gaussian curve, especially considering part (c). But I can't see how I can get an exponential in the final answer because the exponentials seem to cancel out whether or not the square root term is in there.

What am I missing here? Am I on the right track at all?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
So it turns out this is fairly involved but not too complicated. All that's required is using the Taylor series expansion for the natural logarithm and neglecting terms because x<<N (since N is large and the question asks for the behavior "in the vicinity" of the peak)