Talk:Bose–Einstein statistics

message: "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)
thread_title: Untitled

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Distribution Graph

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Chemical potential=0 - an extra description for BEC

message: :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)
thread_title:  Not Exactly 

message: The article currently says:
#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)
thread_title:  Strange inclusion 

message: The notion that the BE distribution is different than that of the Planck distribution, or that it was the breaking proposal for quantization of EM radiation, is a fiction for those who apparently need to glorify Bose, as is done in the whimsical history that is opening this article.  The only aspect that substantially differentiates the BE distribution, as other than a rather redundant restatement of Planck's distribution as probabilities of state, was the addition of the chem potential by Einstein (similar to the concomitant FD statistics), as well as Einstein's extension to atoms, and Einstein's prediction of the condensate, which, contrary to this article, was not done "in collaboration" with Bose - it was developed and published independently by Einstein.  That's just the historical record.  
As far as the propagated fantasy that Bose introduced the quantization theory of photons, anybody can easily confirm that this is completely untrue by consulting the much earlier work by Planck (e.g., "The Theory of Heat Radiation," Planck, published 1914, is his own review of his earlier work and is readily available).  Compton's experimental work and publication, 23 years after Planck's work on this, in 1923 (still before Bose's paper) on the particle-like attributes of x-rays, was then considered to be the most convincing experimental verification of this, at that point, long-standing assertion on the quantum nature of light.  Wikibearwithme (talk) 18:30, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Bose did not develop the distribution for "bosons", Planck did 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Bose–Einstein statistics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131106191036/http://digitallibrary.sissa.it:80/handle/1963/5272? to http://digitallibrary.sissa.it/handle/1963/5272
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:01, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified