# Talk:Bose–Einstein statistics

WikiProject Physics (Rated B-class, High-importance)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Mathematics (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Mathematics rating:
 B Class
 Low Importance
Field: Mathematical physics

"The quantum concentration is when..." doesn't sound like good english. Anybody knows what should be written there? 67.180.29.122 02:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, I have changed it to a construction using "the quantum concentration, for which ...". This was a very tricky edit, since the offending sentence was not in the source code to be edited. I realized that the article uses Template:Physics/ParticleDistributions which is used to place the identical text in the 3 articles on B-E, F-D and M-B distributions. So I corrected the template (and made some other English corrections as well) so that all 3 articles would be corrected simultaneously. In theory at least - in practice I also had to purge the cache for 2 of the 3 articles following instructions in WP:Purge. Not simple but now it is done. Dirac66 (talk) 04:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

## Distribution Graph

Is there any chance of putting a graph of the distribution in the same way as the one in the fermi-dirac statistics page? Grj23 14:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Can model it after based on $\bar{n}_i = \frac{1}{e^{(\epsilon_i-\mu) / k T} + 1}$. The only difference with the B-E distribution should be the factor of $g_i$ and the $-$ in the denominator: $n_i = \frac{g_i}{e^{(\varepsilon_i-\mu)/kT}-1}$ TSchwenn (talk) 21:30, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

## Distribution formula missing?

The distribution formula appears to be missing. --Andreas Rejbrand (talk) 12:42, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

## Chemical potential=0 - an extra description for BEC

I have a suggestion for adding an useful writting in an article. Write chemical potential equals to zero when undergoes BEC. We know that the critical temperature. When T is much smaller than that, BEC happens. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.66.168.3 (talk) 15:07, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

### Not Exactly

Actually, the chemical potential its that it can be approximated to be zero not that it equals zero. If you read pages 200 -202 of Thermal Physics by Charles Kittel, Kittel points out that "The chemical potential of a boson system must always be lower in energy than the ground state orbital in order that the occupancy of every orbital be nonnegative". ( Note: Kittel uses λ = absolute activation energy, where λ = exp(μ/T) ) In other words he saying chemical potential has nonzero energy; however, for the orbitals to not have a negative number of particles, chemical potential energy must be less than the ground state energy at temperature = 0. He also later goes on to give an example when the chemical potential may be negligible. If you continue read up to page 205, Kittel not only shows that the chemical potential is not negligible for finding the number of particles in ground state orbital, but actually shows how you can still derive the Bose-Einstein Condensation temperature. Physics16 (talk) 14:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

## Strange inclusion

The article currently says:

1. Why "{3 + 4 - 1 \choose 3-1}"="{3 + 4 - 1 \choose 4}"? I Think you should write "\choose 3+1" instead of "\choose 3-1"

This material appears to be some reader's critique, and should not be included in the article itself, no? P0M (talk) 04:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

No, it doesn't belong in the article. Whoever wrote it seems to think there is a mistake in a formula, and is suggesting a correction. But the formula is okay: the multiset coefficient ((3 4)) is, by definition, equal both to ( 3+4-1 choose 3-1 ) and to ( 3+4-1 choose 4 ). In general, ((n k)) = ( n+k-1 choose n-1 ) = ( n+k-1 choose k ). I suppose one could object, though, to the fact multiset coefficients are denoted here with angle brackets, but on the Wikipedia page on multiset coefficients to which a reference is given, double parentheses are used instead. Phorse (talk) 22:23, 14 March 2012 (UTC)