Why does photons of a given frequency satisfy the Boltzmann distribution?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the statistical treatment of photons and their energy distribution, specifically addressing the use of Boltzmann statistics versus Bose-Einstein statistics. It is established that while photons are bosons and should ideally follow Bose-Einstein statistics, in the classical limit, the differences between the two distributions become negligible. The probability of finding n photons at frequency ν is given by the equation p(n) = e^{-nhν}/Z, where Z represents the partition function. The conversation emphasizes that for high temperatures and large energies, Maxwell-Boltzmann statistics serve as a valid approximation for photon distributions.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Boltzmann distribution and partition functions
  • Familiarity with Bose-Einstein statistics
  • Knowledge of photon energy quantization (E_n = hν)
  • Basic concepts of statistical mechanics
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation of the Planck law from Boltzmann statistics
  • Learn about the differences between Maxwell-Boltzmann and Bose-Einstein statistics
  • Explore the implications of high-temperature limits on statistical distributions
  • Investigate the role of partition functions in quantum statistical mechanics
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, students of statistical mechanics, and researchers interested in quantum statistics and thermodynamics will benefit from this discussion.

center o bass
Messages
545
Reaction score
2
A mode of frequency ##\nu## has energy ##E_n = h \nu##. In terms of photons, the interpretation that I have read several places, is that this correspond to ##n## photons of energy ##h \nu##. Furthermore, it is stated that the probability of finding ##n## photons at frequency ##\nu## is given by
$$p(n) = e^{-nh\nu}/Z,$$
where Z is the partition function (for example in: http://disciplinas.stoa.usp.br/pluginfile.php/48089/course/section/16461/qsp_chapter10-plank.pdf)

This correspond to Boltzmann statistics, and I'm a bit confused by this since photons are supposedly bosons. Should'nt this instead be Bose-Einstein statistics?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Yes, Bose-Einstein statistics are the correct approach. However, in the classical limit the differences between the two distributions vanish. For example for bosonic atoms, there is not really a difference between the distributions for high temperatures and diluted gases.

For photons, using Boltzmann statistics is fine if you are dealing with large energies because the additional "-1" becomes negligible and Maxwell-Boltzmann statistics become a good approximation to Bose-Einstein statistics.
 
Cthugha said:
Yes, Bose-Einstein statistics are the correct approach. However, in the classical limit the differences between the two distributions vanish. For example for bosonic atoms, there is not really a difference between the distributions for high temperatures and diluted gases.

For photons, using Boltzmann statistics is fine if you are dealing with large energies because the additional "-1" becomes negligible and Maxwell-Boltzmann statistics become a good approximation to Bose-Einstein statistics.

I agree that this is correct in the classical limit. However in http://disciplinas.stoa.usp.br/pluginfile.php/48089/course/section/16461/qsp_chapter10-plank.pdf the complete Planck law is derived by assuming that the probability that a single mode is in a state of energy E=nhν (a state of n photons) is given by a Boltzmann distribution. Hence, the derivation does not consider any limit.
 
Sorry, I do not have access to that PDF file on my phone right now, but are you completely sure that the partition function Z they use is really the classical Maxwell-Boltzmann one?

If they just consider the number of photons in each energy state, they apply BE statistics. If they also take multiplicities into account and you see a lot of factorials, it is most likely the classical partition function.
 
Cthugha said:
Sorry, I do not have access to that PDF file on my phone right now, but are you completely sure that the partition function Z they use is really the classical Maxwell-Boltzmann one?

If they just consider the number of photons in each energy state, they apply BE statistics. If they also take multiplicities into account and you see a lot of factorials, it is most likely the classical partition function.

Might the confusion lie in the difference between modes vs photons or photons at frequency ##\nu## vs photons at any frequency?

To quote directly what is stated:

"The probability that a single mode has energy ##E_n = n h\nu## is given by
$$p(n) = \frac{e^{-E_n/kT}}{\sum_{n=0}^\infty e^{-E_n/kT}}$$
where the denominator ensures that the sum of probabilities is unity, the standard normalization procedure. In the language of photons this is the probability that the state contains ##n## photons of frequency ##\nu##. "
 
center o bass said:
A mode of frequency ##\nu## has energy ##E_n = h \nu##. In terms of photons, the interpretation that I have read several places, is that this correspond to ##n## photons of energy ##h \nu##. Furthermore, it is stated that the probability of finding ##n## photons at frequency ##\nu## is given by
$$p(n) = e^{-nh\nu}/Z,$$
where Z is the partition function (for example in: http://disciplinas.stoa.usp.br/pluginfile.php/48089/course/section/16461/qsp_chapter10-plank.pdf)

This correspond to Boltzmann statistics, and I'm a bit confused by this since photons are supposedly bosons. Should'nt this instead be Bose-Einstein statistics?
Bose-Einstein distribution involves an average over all n, giving the probability of a given frequency. It is the summation over all n that gives the characteristic Bose-Einstein form of the distribution.

When n is fixed, there is no any difference between classical (Maxwell-Boltzmann) and quantum (Bose-Einstein) statistics.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
6K
Replies
6
Views
5K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K