Comment on: “On the Validity of Converting Sums to Integrals in Quantum Statistical Mechanics”

Joel Keizer

Francesco R. Ruggeri

In statistical mechanics, involving quantum objects, one sometimes uses sums if a simple series sum rule exists. For example, in obtaining the Planck distribution 1/ (1-exp(hf/T)) one uses the sum of a geometric series. Otherwise, it seems one uses integrals, arguing that energy levels are very close together. For the Planck distribution with 1/ (1-exp(fon/T)) where n is 1,2,3…, one usually uses an integral, when a sum really applies. In (1), it is argued that such an integral does not yield the same result as the sum for this Planck distribution example. In particular, (1) considers fo as a very small number and shows explicitly that the summation depends on fo, while the integral does not. Given that this applies to the partition function, it carries over to all statistical quantities calculated from the partition function, as noted in (1). Here, we consider other examples. For example, if one tries to replace the geometric series sum used to obtain the Planck distribution, in the first place, with an integral, one immediately has a degeneracy issue. A one dimensional integral over dp (p=magnitude of momentum) yields one answer, while a three-dimensional result Integral 4*3.14 pp dp yields another. The geometric sum, however, does not include the degeneracies of p so it is not clear why one would use a 3-dimensional integral. Even if one uses a one dimensional integral, it does not yield the same result as the geometric sum. In fact, the geometric sum depends on the value of f/T, while the integral does not - it depends on T. Another example is the partition function for a single quantum particle in a box with infinite potential walls (e.g. a Fermi gas). Again an integral is used, but it seems that using p=po a where a is a small number proportional to 1/L, the length of the box and summing should yield an “a” dependent result, which the integral does not give.

Xian Xi Dai, William Edwin Evenson

Quantum statistical mechanics has developed primarily through two approaches, pioneered by Gibbs and Feynman, respectively. In Gibbs' method one calculates partition functions from phase-space integrations or sums over stationary states. Alternatively, in Feynman's approach, the focus is on the path-integral formulation. The Hubbard-Stratonovich transformation leads to a functional-integral formulation for calculating partition functions. We outline here the functional integral approach to quantum statistical mechanics, including generalizations and improvements to Hubbard's formulation. We show how the dimensionality of the integrals is reduced exactly, how the problem of assuming an unknown canonical transformation is avoided, how the reality of the partition function in the complex representation is guaranteed, and how the extremum conditions are simplified. This formulation can be applied to general systems, including superconductors.

Joel Keizer

Lawrence C. Biedenharn

Claude D. George, Ilya Prigogine

For original paper see Coveney et. al. ibid., vol.25, p.4947 (1992). The previous authors state, in the introductory section of their paper that they are looking only at a 'small part' of the Brussels formalism. The title of their paper does not reflect this restriction and refers to the general validity of the Brussels formalism. The criticisms are focused on a few papers published about twenty years ago. However, even restricted to these papers, their claims do not apply. The present authors point out two major misrepresentations.