You can write the energy
constraint of the two oscillators as
(i+½) ħωo + (j+½)
ħωo = n′ ħωo ,
which gives
(i+½) + (j+½) = n′ ,
i + j = n′ – 1,
j = n′ – i –
1
From this expression, you
can just build a table of all possible i
and j values, using the fact that the
lowest “non-negative integer” is 0, not 1:
i
|
j
|
0
|
n′ – 1
|
1
|
n′ – 2
|
2
|
n′ – 3
|
…
|
…
|
n′ – 3
|
2
|
n′ – 2
|
1
|
n′ – 1
|
0
|
For any given positive integer n' this table gives all the ways the energy can be shared between the two oscillators. So, just counting the number of rows in the table gives the number of microstates. Since we have
to start counting from zero, the number of microstates is
(n′ – 1) + 1 = n′ .
The “–1” comes from having to
account for zero-point energy (ZPE) in the energy constraint, and the “+1” from starting the count at zero. So there are n′ microstates. Yeah, sort of an anticlimactic result—the number of microstates is just equal to the number of "energy elements" the system has. With only two oscillators,
whatever part of the total energy isn't in one is in the other. When there are three or more oscillators, permutations of the total
number of oscillators among the energy states must be counted. (But--not to be dealt with in this problem--is this equal
to the number of permutations of the total number of energy elements among the
oscillators? That is, we can count oscillators per energy level, or energy elements per oscillator. Is the number of microstates the same for both methods of counting?)
Also, in this two-oscillator case, the equality
of # of microstates and # of energy elements is only true when both oscillators have a zero-point energy, as you can see if you leave out the ZPE in the energy constraint equation above.
How many
microstates does a single oscillator have? Remember, the given energy of the
system is not the highest energy available because this is the
thermally-isolated-system case, the microcanonical case, and the given energy
is the total energy. A single oscillator with constant total energy (with or
without ZPE) has one microstate.
As an example for our two oscillators, let n′ = 5. Then i + j = n′ – 1 = 4, and there are five microstates:
Solution to part one: Since there
are n′ microstates, the entropy is
S1 =k log (n′) = k log (E′/ħωo).
where log means natural log. I’ll
come back later to this part of the problem to examine what kind of physical
system this two–oscillator model might represent.
(What if the problem
involved N oscillators without ZPE, a la Dr. Planckenstein in 1900? I’ll look at that case below.)
-----------------------------
Now for part two of the problem:
"A second system is
composed of two harmonic oscillators, each of natural frequency 2ωo. The total energy of this system is E″ = n″ħωo, where n″
is an even integer. How many microstates
are available to this system, and what is its entropy?"
The energy constraint is
now
(i+½) 2ħωo + (j+½)2ħωo = n″ħωo
,
(i+½) + (j +½) = n″/2 ,
i + j = n″/2 – 1,
j = n″/2 – i –
1
Why does Callen give us
this second part of the problem? What
does it tell us that’s not told in the first part of the problem? This is the same relation between i and j as in part one, but with n″/2 instead of n′. And n″/2 still
gives us consecutive positive integers as possible values, since we are told n″ is an even integer. The table of available microstates is
i
|
j
|
0
|
n″/2
– 1
|
1
|
n″/2
– 2
|
2
|
n″/2
– 3
|
…
|
…
|
n″/2
– 3
|
2
|
n″/2
– 2
|
1
|
n″/2
– 1
|
0
|
There are (n″/2
– 1) + 1 = n″/2 microstates. The entropy is
S2 = k log (n″/2).
This part of the problem definitely has some Planck-original-quantum-paper similarity to it, although it's entirely superficial: Planck used different numbers of "primes" on his variables (E, E′, E″, etc., for energy, for instance) to indicate different frequencies ω, ω', ω'', etc. And that's all we have here in part two, a different frequency. But, the big thing with Planck's theory was and is that the energy of a quantum mechanical oscillator is determined by its single, perfectly monochromatic frequency (amazing!) and by integer multiples of that frequency. I think this is the point of Callen's problem. Is the number of microstates going to change just because we have a higher frequency, and thus a higher energy? What's really different about this and part one?
Consider this:
E″ = n″ħωo = (n″/2) 2ħωo,
where the consecutive energy levels for n″/2 are 1, 2, 3, ... , since n″ is even. But this is just like counting the number of energy levels for part one. What we have is n″/2 = n′, and that means
E″ = (n″/2) 2ħωo= n′ 2ħωo
Now the energy constraint
is
(i+½) 2ħωo + (j+½)2ħωo = n′ 2ħωo ,
(i+½) + (j +½) = n′ ,
i + j = n′ – 1,
j =n′ – i –
1
This is the same relation between i and j as in part one. The number of microstates is the same, n′ , so the entropy is the same.
Now for part three of the problem: What
is the entropy of the system composed of the two preceding subsystems if they
are separated and enclosed by a totally restrictive wall?
Since
the subsystems are noninteracting in the most restrictive way possible--they can't exchange energy or particles (oscillators) with each other--their entropies just add together to give
S1 + S2 =
k log (n′) + k log(n″/2)
=
k log (E′/ħωo) + k log(E″/2ħωo)
=
k log (E′ E″/2ħ2ωo2
).
This is the answer Callen gives in the text. But based on my answer to part two above, this is equivalent to
S1 + S2 = k log (n′) + k log(n″/2)
= k log (n′) + k log(n′)
= 2k log(n′)
=2k log(E′/ħωo).