Talk:Boltzmann distribution - Revision history

Carl McBride at 12:33, 17 July 2008

2008-07-17T12:33:18Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:33, 17 July 2008
Line 10:		Line 10:
	----		----
	--Noe 10:32, 17 July 2008 (CEST)		--Noe 10:32, 17 July 2008 (CEST)

			:Good point --[[User:Carl McBride \| <b><FONT COLOR="#8B3A3A">Carl McBride</FONT></b>]] ([[User_talk:Carl_McBride \|talk]]) 14:33, 17 July 2008 (CEST)

Noe at 11:54, 17 July 2008

2008-07-17T11:54:26Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:54, 17 July 2008
Line 3:		Line 3:
	but a given energy can be degenerate, so I think that it should be written something like		but a given energy can be degenerate, so I think that it should be written something like

	:<math> f(E) \propto \Omega(E) \exp \left[ - E/k_B T \right] </math>, where		:<math> f(E) \propto \Omega(E) \exp \left[ - E/k_B T \right] </math>,
	<math> \Omega \left( E \right) </math> is the degeneracy of the energy <math> E </math>.		where <math> \Omega \left( E \right) </math> is the degeneracy of the energy <math> E </math>; therefore

	~~therefor~~

	:<math> f(E) = \frac{1}{Z} \Omega(E) \exp \left[ -E/k_B T \right] </math>.		:<math> f(E) = \frac{1}{Z} \Omega(E) \exp \left[ -E/k_B T \right] </math>.

Noe at 11:53, 17 July 2008

2008-07-17T11:53:34Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:53, 17 July 2008
Line 3:		Line 3:
	but a given energy can be degenerate, so I think that it should be written something like		but a given energy can be degenerate, so I think that it should be written something like

	:<math> f(E) \propto \Omega(E) \exp \left[ - E/k_B T \right] </math>, ~~with~~		:<math> f(E) \propto \Omega(E) \exp \left[ - E/k_B T \right] </math>, where
	<math> \Omega \left( E \right) </math> is the degeneracy of the energy <math> E </math>.		<math> \Omega \left( E \right) </math> is the degeneracy of the energy <math> E </math>.

Noe: small change

2008-07-17T11:53:04Z

small change

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:53, 17 July 2008
Line 1:		Line 1:
	I think that the current definition of Boltzmann ~~definition~~ is misleading.		I think that the current definition of Boltzmann distribution is misleading.
	The probability of a microsate, say <math >X_i </math>, is <math> \propto \exp \left[ - E(X_i) \right] </math>.		The probability of a microsate, say <math >X_i </math>, is <math> \propto \exp \left[ - E(X_i) \right] </math>.
	but a given energy can be degenerate, so I think that it should be written something like		but a given energy can be degenerate, so I think that it should be written something like

Noe: New page: I think that the current definition of Boltzmann definition is misleading. The probability of a microsate, say $X_i$ , is $\propto \exp \left[ - E(X_i) \right]$ ...

2008-07-17T08:32:55Z

New page: I think that the current definition of Boltzmann definition is misleading. The probability of a microsate, say <math >X_i </math>, is <math> \propto \exp \left[ - E(X_i) \right] </math>...

New page

I think that the current definition of Boltzmann definition is misleading.
The probability of a microsate, say <math >X_i </math>, is <math> \propto \exp \left[ - E(X_i) \right] </math>.
but a given energy can be degenerate, so I think that it should be written something like

:<math> f(E) \propto \Omega(E) \exp \left[ - E/k_B T \right] </math>, with
<math> \Omega \left( E \right) </math> is the degeneracy of the energy <math> E </math>.

therefor

:<math> f(E) = \frac{1}{Z} \Omega(E) \exp \left[ -E/k_B T \right] </math>.

----
--Noe 10:32, 17 July 2008 (CEST)

Talk:Boltzmann distribution - Revision history

Carl McBride at 12:33, 17 July 2008

Noe at 11:54, 17 July 2008

Noe at 11:53, 17 July 2008

Noe: small change

Noe: New page: I think that the current definition of Boltzmann definition is misleading. The probability of a microsate, say X_i , is \propto \exp \left[ - E(X_i) \right] ...

Noe: New page: I think that the current definition of Boltzmann definition is misleading. The probability of a microsate, say $X_i$ , is $\propto \exp \left[ - E(X_i) \right]$ ...