Talk:Canonical ensemble

message: The canonical partition function is introduced at the beginning of article.  IMHO, this concise result itself is more important than its derivations. Czhangrice 05:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: :Yes, yes, I know... :-) --HappyCamper 21:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What about removing the referrals to other ensembles in the introduction. Even for someone who knows what a canonical ensemble is, this is just too confusing. -- Mipmip 12:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: IMHO, the comparisons should be kept. you wanna give it a go at improving the readability of that passage, from your perspective? then we'll see what other folks think. Mct mht 11:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree. The connection with other ensembles are not very essential in understanding the canonical ensemble itself. I create a separate section for these contents. Czhangrice 05:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  creating a new section of comparison with other ensembles 

message: One point I tried to make clear is that the heat bath is not necessary in the ensemble theory, other systems in the ensemble naturally serve as an effective heat bath.  Since we are talking about the canonical ensemble, probably it is better to write the article from the ensemble viewpoint.  However, I am aware that the heat-bath way of introducing canonical ensemble is a common introducing derivation, and it is widely used in textbooks. Anyway, this is only my personal preference. Czhangrice 05:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: about the ensemble derivation

message: Suggested redirect from "Gibbs ensemble"
The canonical ensemble and Gibbs ensemble are DIFFERENT things.  Gibbs canonical ensemble should NOT redirect to canonical ensemble, but to Isothermal–isobaric ensemble.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.23.5.194 (talk) 02:57, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: redirect suggestion

message: I merged Canonical probability distribution into this article.  The change to this article is minimal (a link and a date) since that article was just a stub. I am mentioning it here is on the off-chance that they don't deserve to be merged.TStein (talk) 22:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: I merged Canonical probability distribution into this article

message: I would like to see a solid reference for this section because the writer claims extraordinary claims that are not accepted by the general scientific community. Specifically claims like: 
The only reference i see regarding this section is a reference to a new non journal accepted article : "V.A. Skrebnev, Canonical distribution and incompleteness of quantum mechanics, arXiv:1201.5078v1 [physics.gen-ph]". This is nonsense and i demand that this entire section be removed until the author can back his claims with legitimate sources. 
(Dean Mark 19:32, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "Issues in the traditional models of the derivation of the canonical distribution" section contains original research

message: Yes, this is a common derivation method...  the article is presented in exactly the same step-by-step manner as you would find in MOST statistical mechanics (especially from the perspective of physical/theoretical chemistry) books.
But, possibly in an attempt to keep it succinct, the section reads like a reminder for someone who forgot their stat mech.  Understanding the insight into WHY each step is chosen is important, not just physically but also mathematically.  Why do assume what we assume?  How did we come to this conclusion?  Someone who is familiar with some of the mathematics might not immediately see why we would NEED to use Stirling's Approximation.... because we are dealing with factorials of very large numbers, and through the behavior of the logarithm we can simplify it and even approximate it.  It might even be good to suggest the relationships between thermodynamic beta, the temperature, the configurational entropy, and the microcanonical ensemble.184.189.220.114 (talk) 09:17, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Derivation Section Reads Like a Leading Lecture to an Informed Audience 

message: I return to F designation as A occupied by the surface. This creates problems, for the canonical ensemble, which partition function contains the surface, but also connected with a free energy. Luksaz (talk) 19:45, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changing A to F