10 Oscillators & 8 Quanta of Energy, Dominant Configuration?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on determining the dominant energy configuration for a system of 10 oscillators and eight quanta of energy. The correct configuration is identified as having 5 oscillators in the ground state, 3 in the first excited state, and 1 each in the second and third excited states, leading to a weight of 5040. The confusion arose from an incorrect alternative configuration that resulted in a weight of 6300 but corresponded to 9 quanta of energy, which is invalid for the system. The importance of correctly interpreting the occupation numbers for energy levels was emphasized, clarifying why the larger weight does not indicate a valid configuration. Understanding these connections is crucial for solving similar statistical thermodynamics problems.
TChill
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
Hello, This is my first time using this forum, I just have a quick question that I'm trying not to get too held up on by re-reading (skimming) the chapter several times. Anyways:

Homework Statement



"Consider the case of 10 oscillators and eight quanta of energy. Determine the dominant configuration of energy for this system by identifying energy configurations and calculating the corresponding weights. What is the probability of observing the dominant configuration?"

Homework Equations



The Weight (W): W = N!/[(N0!)(N1!)(N2!)(N...!)]

The Attempt at a Solution



I know that the answer is 10!/[(1!)(1!)(3!)(5!)] = 5040 for the dominant weight, but when I used (instead of 3! & 5!, I used) 10!/[(4!)(4!)] which equals 6300. Why is 3! & 5! the dominant energy configuration used then? I assume you can't use two of the same N (populations/states)? Is that right?

I also got the answer to the rest of the question too [WTOTAL=20170, & Probability = W/Wtotal = 5040/20170 = 0.25], but I couldn't get passed the very first part of figuring out the dominant energy configurations for this system.

-Thanks***NOTE: The text that I'm given is Physical Chemistry 9th Ed. by Atkins. I know that the question is from some Statistical Thermodynamics and Kinetics book by Engel & Reid. If it matters.. I feel like the book I have is a little difficult to follow
 
Physics news on Phys.org
If I'm understanding the problem correctly, the numbers in the denominator of the weight are the number of oscillators with that many quanta of energy. In particular there are N_0 oscillators in the ground state, N_1 oscillators in the first excited state, and so on. Given that interpretation, try computing the total amount of energy in each of the configurations you've discussed. You should find that
N_0 = 5, N_1 = 3, N_2 = 1, N_3 = 1,\ldots
contains the correct amount of energy, but
N_0 = 4, N_1 = 4, N_2 = 1, N_3 = 1,\ldots
does not.
 
Thank you for a reply! However, I'm not understanding why the correct configuration is correct. I assumed the larger weight (W) would be dominant & therefore the answer, but it is not.

Why is that configuration the correct one?
 
My point was that, of the two alternatives you mentioned in your question, the one with the larger weight is not a valid configuration for this physical system. My last post explains why that is the case.

Did you try computing the total amount of energy in each configuration, as I suggested?
 
So what I believe wasn't clear about the problem was that there were only 4 energy levels (ε0, ε1, ε2, ε3). Silly mistake. But it wasn't exactly obvious from the textbook we are given that the occupation numbers were used to describe how many units occupy a given energy level.

Now it is clear why (1!)(1!)(4!)(4!) didn't work because it would correspond with 9 quanta of energy [E=ƩN[SUB]i[/SUB]*εi] therefore (0e*4)+(1e*4)+(2e*1)+(3e*1) = 0+4+2+3 = 9 which is what you meant by an invalid configuration because it over 8. It was difficult to understand what you meant without these connections, so it wasn't very clear. Thanks anyways though, appreciate it.
 
Thread 'Help with Time-Independent Perturbation Theory "Good" States Proof'
(Disclaimer: this is not a HW question. I am self-studying, and this felt like the type of question I've seen in this forum. If there is somewhere better for me to share this doubt, please let me know and I'll transfer it right away.) I am currently reviewing Chapter 7 of Introduction to QM by Griffiths. I have been stuck for an hour or so trying to understand the last paragraph of this proof (pls check the attached file). It claims that we can express Ψ_{γ}(0) as a linear combination of...
Back
Top