Interpretation of the Boltzmann factor and partition function












4














$$p_i = frac{ expleft(-frac{epsilon _i}{k_BT} right)}{Z} $$
$$ Z= sum_{i} expleft(-frac{epsilon _i}{k_BT} right)$$



A) Is $p_i$ the probability of the system having an energy equal to $epsilon_i$? (Probability to be in any of the many microstates that have energy $epsilon_i$).



B) Or is $p_i$ the probability of the system being in one particular microstate which happens to have energy $epsilon_i$? (This microstate is not the only microstate with the same energy).



If A) is correct then:
$$ Z= sum_{epsilon_i} expleft(-frac{epsilon _i}{k_BT} right)$$



If B) is correct then:
$$ Z= sum_{epsilon_i} Omega_iexpleft(-frac{epsilon _i}{k_BT} right),$$
where $Omega_i$ is the multiplicity of the macrostate of energy $epsilon_i$.



From the derivation of the Boltzmann distribution I am inclined to understand it as B). But I have never seen the multiplicity in the partition function.



What is the correct interpretation of the Boltzmann distribution?






statistical-mechanics probability partition-function







share|cite|improve this question





























    4














    $$p_i = frac{ expleft(-frac{epsilon _i}{k_BT} right)}{Z} $$
    $$ Z= sum_{i} expleft(-frac{epsilon _i}{k_BT} right)$$



    A) Is $p_i$ the probability of the system having an energy equal to $epsilon_i$? (Probability to be in any of the many microstates that have energy $epsilon_i$).



    B) Or is $p_i$ the probability of the system being in one particular microstate which happens to have energy $epsilon_i$? (This microstate is not the only microstate with the same energy).



    If A) is correct then:
    $$ Z= sum_{epsilon_i} expleft(-frac{epsilon _i}{k_BT} right)$$



    If B) is correct then:
    $$ Z= sum_{epsilon_i} Omega_iexpleft(-frac{epsilon _i}{k_BT} right),$$
    where $Omega_i$ is the multiplicity of the macrostate of energy $epsilon_i$.



    From the derivation of the Boltzmann distribution I am inclined to understand it as B). But I have never seen the multiplicity in the partition function.



    What is the correct interpretation of the Boltzmann distribution?






    statistical-mechanics probability partition-function







    share|cite|improve this question



























      4












      4








      4







      $$p_i = frac{ expleft(-frac{epsilon _i}{k_BT} right)}{Z} $$
      $$ Z= sum_{i} expleft(-frac{epsilon _i}{k_BT} right)$$



      A) Is $p_i$ the probability of the system having an energy equal to $epsilon_i$? (Probability to be in any of the many microstates that have energy $epsilon_i$).



      B) Or is $p_i$ the probability of the system being in one particular microstate which happens to have energy $epsilon_i$? (This microstate is not the only microstate with the same energy).



      If A) is correct then:
      $$ Z= sum_{epsilon_i} expleft(-frac{epsilon _i}{k_BT} right)$$



      If B) is correct then:
      $$ Z= sum_{epsilon_i} Omega_iexpleft(-frac{epsilon _i}{k_BT} right),$$
      where $Omega_i$ is the multiplicity of the macrostate of energy $epsilon_i$.



      From the derivation of the Boltzmann distribution I am inclined to understand it as B). But I have never seen the multiplicity in the partition function.



      What is the correct interpretation of the Boltzmann distribution?






      statistical-mechanics probability partition-function







      share|cite|improve this question















      $$p_i = frac{ expleft(-frac{epsilon _i}{k_BT} right)}{Z} $$
      $$ Z= sum_{i} expleft(-frac{epsilon _i}{k_BT} right)$$



      A) Is $p_i$ the probability of the system having an energy equal to $epsilon_i$? (Probability to be in any of the many microstates that have energy $epsilon_i$).



      B) Or is $p_i$ the probability of the system being in one particular microstate which happens to have energy $epsilon_i$? (This microstate is not the only microstate with the same energy).



      If A) is correct then:
      $$ Z= sum_{epsilon_i} expleft(-frac{epsilon _i}{k_BT} right)$$



      If B) is correct then:
      $$ Z= sum_{epsilon_i} Omega_iexpleft(-frac{epsilon _i}{k_BT} right),$$
      where $Omega_i$ is the multiplicity of the macrostate of energy $epsilon_i$.



      From the derivation of the Boltzmann distribution I am inclined to understand it as B). But I have never seen the multiplicity in the partition function.



      What is the correct interpretation of the Boltzmann distribution?






      statistical-mechanics probability partition-function




      statistical-mechanics probability partition-function






      share|cite|improve this question















      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited yesterday









      Qmechanic♦

      102k121831160




      102k121831160










      asked yesterday









      Daniel DuqueDaniel Duque

      13510




      13510






















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          9














          To the first question, the answer is B: $p_i$ is the probability of being in the $i$-th microstate, which happens to have an energy $varepsilon_i$. However, microstates other than the $i$-th one may also have an energy $varepsilon_i$.



          The reason you never see the multiplicity in the partition function is because you are probably looking at summations done over the microstates: $$Z=sum_i e^{-frac{varepsilon_i}{k_BT}}$$ instead of over the internal energies as you’ve written above.






          share|cite|improve this answer























          • I would not say that it is bizarre to write the partition function a a sum over energies. I have certainly seen it done. It is common, for example to do this as a precursor to moving representation of the partition function as an integral over energy levels, in which the multiplicity $g_i$ becomes a contribution to the density of states $g(epsilon)$ states.
            – By Symmetry
            yesterday










          • I do apologize - I am only an undergraduate and have never seen it as a sum over the energies in my limited experience. I will amend my statement.
            – Riley Scott Jacob
            yesterday











          Your Answer





          StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
          return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
          StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
          StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
          });
          });
          }, "mathjax-editing");

          StackExchange.ready(function() {
          var channelOptions = {
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "151"
          };
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
          createEditor();
          });
          }
          else {
          createEditor();
          }
          });

          function createEditor() {
          StackExchange.prepareEditor({
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
          convertImagesToLinks: false,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: null,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          imageUploader: {
          brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
          contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
          allowUrls: true
          },
          noCode: true, onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          });


          }
          });














          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f452758%2finterpretation-of-the-boltzmann-factor-and-partition-function%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes








          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes









          9














          To the first question, the answer is B: $p_i$ is the probability of being in the $i$-th microstate, which happens to have an energy $varepsilon_i$. However, microstates other than the $i$-th one may also have an energy $varepsilon_i$.



          The reason you never see the multiplicity in the partition function is because you are probably looking at summations done over the microstates: $$Z=sum_i e^{-frac{varepsilon_i}{k_BT}}$$ instead of over the internal energies as you’ve written above.






          share|cite|improve this answer























          • I would not say that it is bizarre to write the partition function a a sum over energies. I have certainly seen it done. It is common, for example to do this as a precursor to moving representation of the partition function as an integral over energy levels, in which the multiplicity $g_i$ becomes a contribution to the density of states $g(epsilon)$ states.
            – By Symmetry
            yesterday










          • I do apologize - I am only an undergraduate and have never seen it as a sum over the energies in my limited experience. I will amend my statement.
            – Riley Scott Jacob
            yesterday
















          9














          To the first question, the answer is B: $p_i$ is the probability of being in the $i$-th microstate, which happens to have an energy $varepsilon_i$. However, microstates other than the $i$-th one may also have an energy $varepsilon_i$.



          The reason you never see the multiplicity in the partition function is because you are probably looking at summations done over the microstates: $$Z=sum_i e^{-frac{varepsilon_i}{k_BT}}$$ instead of over the internal energies as you’ve written above.






          share|cite|improve this answer























          • I would not say that it is bizarre to write the partition function a a sum over energies. I have certainly seen it done. It is common, for example to do this as a precursor to moving representation of the partition function as an integral over energy levels, in which the multiplicity $g_i$ becomes a contribution to the density of states $g(epsilon)$ states.
            – By Symmetry
            yesterday










          • I do apologize - I am only an undergraduate and have never seen it as a sum over the energies in my limited experience. I will amend my statement.
            – Riley Scott Jacob
            yesterday














          9












          9








          9






          To the first question, the answer is B: $p_i$ is the probability of being in the $i$-th microstate, which happens to have an energy $varepsilon_i$. However, microstates other than the $i$-th one may also have an energy $varepsilon_i$.



          The reason you never see the multiplicity in the partition function is because you are probably looking at summations done over the microstates: $$Z=sum_i e^{-frac{varepsilon_i}{k_BT}}$$ instead of over the internal energies as you’ve written above.






          share|cite|improve this answer














          To the first question, the answer is B: $p_i$ is the probability of being in the $i$-th microstate, which happens to have an energy $varepsilon_i$. However, microstates other than the $i$-th one may also have an energy $varepsilon_i$.



          The reason you never see the multiplicity in the partition function is because you are probably looking at summations done over the microstates: $$Z=sum_i e^{-frac{varepsilon_i}{k_BT}}$$ instead of over the internal energies as you’ve written above.







          share|cite|improve this answer














          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer








          edited yesterday

























          answered yesterday









          Riley Scott JacobRiley Scott Jacob

          2937




          2937












          • I would not say that it is bizarre to write the partition function a a sum over energies. I have certainly seen it done. It is common, for example to do this as a precursor to moving representation of the partition function as an integral over energy levels, in which the multiplicity $g_i$ becomes a contribution to the density of states $g(epsilon)$ states.
            – By Symmetry
            yesterday










          • I do apologize - I am only an undergraduate and have never seen it as a sum over the energies in my limited experience. I will amend my statement.
            – Riley Scott Jacob
            yesterday


















          • I would not say that it is bizarre to write the partition function a a sum over energies. I have certainly seen it done. It is common, for example to do this as a precursor to moving representation of the partition function as an integral over energy levels, in which the multiplicity $g_i$ becomes a contribution to the density of states $g(epsilon)$ states.
            – By Symmetry
            yesterday










          • I do apologize - I am only an undergraduate and have never seen it as a sum over the energies in my limited experience. I will amend my statement.
            – Riley Scott Jacob
            yesterday
















          I would not say that it is bizarre to write the partition function a a sum over energies. I have certainly seen it done. It is common, for example to do this as a precursor to moving representation of the partition function as an integral over energy levels, in which the multiplicity $g_i$ becomes a contribution to the density of states $g(epsilon)$ states.
          – By Symmetry
          yesterday




          I would not say that it is bizarre to write the partition function a a sum over energies. I have certainly seen it done. It is common, for example to do this as a precursor to moving representation of the partition function as an integral over energy levels, in which the multiplicity $g_i$ becomes a contribution to the density of states $g(epsilon)$ states.
          – By Symmetry
          yesterday












          I do apologize - I am only an undergraduate and have never seen it as a sum over the energies in my limited experience. I will amend my statement.
          – Riley Scott Jacob
          yesterday




          I do apologize - I am only an undergraduate and have never seen it as a sum over the energies in my limited experience. I will amend my statement.
          – Riley Scott Jacob
          yesterday


















          draft saved

          draft discarded




















































          Thanks for contributing an answer to Physics Stack Exchange!


          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

          But avoid …



          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


          Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





          Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


          Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

          But avoid …



          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f452758%2finterpretation-of-the-boltzmann-factor-and-partition-function%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown





















































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown

































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown







          -

          Popular posts from this blog

          An IMO inspired problem

          Image
          14 4 This problem from IMO 1988 is said to be one of the most elegant ones in functional equations. Problem : The function $f$ is defined on the set of all positive integers as follows: begin{align} f(1) = 1, f(3) &= 3, f(2n) = f(n), \ f(4n+1) &= 2f(2n+1) - f(n), \ f(4n+3) &= 3 f(2n+1) - 2f(n) end{align} Find the number of $n$ with $f(n) = n, 1 leq n leq 1988$. The main idea towards the solution is realizing that these conditions stand for the fact that $f(n)$ just reverses the digits in the binary representation of the number $n$. So, essentially the solution is finding the number of binary pallindromes $leq 1988_{10}$. My question is the following : How to reformulate the problem so that $f(n)$ reverses the digits of $n$ in its ternary representation. Or even better, can we reformulate it for a
          Read more

          Management

          Image
          Management From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to navigation Jump to search "Manager" redirects here. For other uses, see Management (disambiguation) and Manager (disambiguation). An organization chart for the United States Coast Guard shows the hierarchy of managerial roles in that organization. Business administration Management of a business Accounting Management accounting Financial accounting Financial audit Business entities Cooperative Corporation Limited liability company Partnership Sole proprietorship State-owned enterprise Corporate governance Annual general meeting Board of directors Supervisory board Advisory board Audit committee Corporate law Commercial law Constitutional documents Contract Corporate crime Corporate liability Insolvency law International trade law Mergers and acquisitions Economics Commodity Pu
          Read more

          Investment

          Image
          Investment From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to navigation Jump to search This article is about investment in finance. For investment in macroeconomics, see Investment (macroeconomics). For other uses, see Investment (disambiguation). "Invest" redirects here. For the term in meteorology, see Invest (meteorology). This article needs additional citations for verification . Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. ( February 2017 ) (Learn how and when to remove this template message) In general, to invest is to distribute money in the expectation of some benefit in the future – for example, investment in durable goods, in real estate by the service industry, in factories for manufacturing, in product development, and in research and development. However, this article focuses specifically on investment in financial
          Read more