The fundamental question from which all of quantum statistics springs is a very basic one: How many system energy eigenstates are there with given generic properties? This section will address that question.
Of course, by definition each system energy eigenfunction is unique. Figures 11.1-11.3 give examples of such unique energy eigenfunctions for systems of distinguishable particles, indistinguishable bosons, and indistinguishable fermions. But trying to get accurate data on each individual eigenfunction just does not work. That is much too big a challenge.
Quantum statistics must satisfy itself by figuring out the
probabilities on groups of system eigenfunctions with similar
properties. To do so, the single-particle energy eigenstates are best
grouped together on shelves of similar energy, as illustrated in
figures 11.1-11.3. Doing so allows for more
answerable questions such as: “How many system energy
eigenfunctions
have
out of the
total particles on
shelf 1, another
on shelf 2, etcetera?” In other words,
if
stands for a given set of shelf occupation numbers
,
of
system eigenfunctions
that have those shelf occupation
numbers?
That question is answerable with some clever mathematics; it is a big
thing in various textbooks. However, the suspicion is that this is
more because of the “neat” mathematics than because of
the actual physical insight that these derivations provide. In this
book, the derivations are shoved away into {D.57}. But
here are the results. (Drums please.) The system eigenfunction
counts for distinguishable particles, bosons, and fermions are:
This section is mainly concerned with explaining qualitatively why these system eigenfunction counts matter physically. And to do so, a very simple model system having only three shelves will suffice.
![]() |
The first example is illustrated in quantum-mechanical terms in figure
11.4. Like the other examples, it has only three
shelves, and it has only
4 distinguishable particles. Shelf 1
has
1 single-particle state with energy
1
(arbitrary units), shelf 2 has
3 single-particle states with
energy
2, (note that 3
), and shelf
3 has
8 single-particle states with energy
4. One major deficiency of this model is the small number of
particles and states, but that will be fixed in the later examples.
More seriously is that there are no shelves with energies above
4. To mitigate that problem, for the time being the average
energy per particle of the system eigenfunctions will be restricted to
no more than 2.5. This will leave shelf 3 largely empty, reducing the
effects of the missing shelves of still higher energy.
![]() |
Now the question is, how many energy eigenfunctions are there for a
given set of shelf occupation numbers
?
Some example observations about the figure may help to understand it.
For example, there is only one system eigenfunction with all 4
particles on shelf 1, i.e. with
4 and
0; it is
As another example, the darkest square in the left graph of figure
11.5 represents system eigenfunctions that have shelf
numbers
,
1,
2,
1: one particle on shelf 1, two particles on
shelf 2, and one particle on shelf 3. A completely arbitrary example
of such a system energy eigenfunction,
Next, consider a system four times as big. That means that there are
four times as many particles, so
16 particles, in a box that has
four times the volume. If the volume of the box becomes 4 times as
large, there are four times as many single-particle states on each
shelf, since the number of states per unit volume at a given
single-particle energy is constant, compare (6.6). Shelf
1 now has 4 states, shelf 2 has 12, and shelf 3 has 32. The number
of energy states for given shelf occupation numbers is shown as grey
tones in the middle graph of figure 11.5. Now the number
of system energy eigenfunctions that have all particles on shelf 1 is
not one, but ![]()
(4,6,6). There are about 1.4 ![]()
(16,0,0) square at the origin stays lily-white despite
having over 4 billion energy eigenfunctions.
If the system size is increased by another factor 4, to 64 particles,
the number of states with occupation numbers
(64,0,0),
all particles on shelf 1, is 1.2 ![]()
![]()
(14,27,23). Taking the ratio
of these two numbers shows that there are 2.3 ![]()
for each eigenfunction
with shelf numbers
.![]()
These general trends do not just apply to this simple model system; they are typical:
The number of system energy eigenfunctions for a macroscopic system is astronomical, and so are the differences in numbers.
Another trend illustrated by figure 11.5 has to do with the
effect of system energy. The system energy of an energy eigenfunction
is given in terms of its shelf numbers by
The number of system energy eigenfunctions with a higher energy typically dwarfs the number of system eigenfunctions with a lower energy.
![]() |
Next assume that the system has exactly the energy of the oblique
cut-off line in figure 11.5, with zero uncertainty.
The number of energy eigenstates
on that oblique line is
plotted in figure 11.6 as a function of the fraction of
particles ![]()
![]()
on shelf 2. (To get a smooth continuous curve,
the values have been mathematically interpolated in between the
integer values of
.
is called the gamma function; see the notations
section under “!” for details.) The maximum number of
energy eigenstates occurs at about ![]()
![]()
40%,
corresponding to
37% and
23%. This set of
occupation numbers,
=
,
To be sure, if the number of particles is large, the chances of
picking any eigenfunction with an exact set of occupation
numbers is small. But note how the “spike” in figure
11.6 becomes narrower with increasing number of particles.
You may not pick an eigenfunction with exactly the most
probable set of shelf numbers, but you are quite sure to pick one with
shelf numbers very close to it. By the time the system size reaches,
say, ![]()
,
,
.
Since there is only an incredibly small fraction of eigenfunctions that do not have very accurately the most probable occupation numbers, it seems intuitively obvious that in thermal equilibrium, the physical system must have the same distribution of particle energies. Why would nature prefer one of those extremely rare eigenfunctions that do not have these occupation numbers, rather than one of the vast majority that do? In fact, {N.23},
It is a fundamental assumption of statistical mechanics that in thermal equilibrium, all system energy eigenfunctions with the same energy have the same probability.So the most probable set of shelf numbers, as found from the count of eigenfunctions, gives the distribution of particle energies in thermal equilibrium.
This then is the final conclusion: the particle energy distribution of a macroscopic system of weakly interacting particles at a given energy can be obtained by merely counting the system energy eigenstates. It can be done without doing any physics. Whatever physics may want to do, it is just not enough to offset the vast numerical superiority of the eigenfunctions with very accurately the most probable shelf numbers.