Gibbs and Equilibrium Statistical Mechanics
In 1901, at the age of 62, Gibbs (1839-1903)
published a book called Elementary Principles in Statistical Mechanics
(Dover, New York). It was remarkable in several ways. First, it had as a
subtitle The Rational Foundation of Thermodynamics. Gibbs chose
this subtitle because he knew his theory did not agree with experiments,
as he emphasized in the preface to the book. Yet he believed there were no
other possible rational basis to thermodynamics. Second, the style of
writing of the book has an elegance akin to a long poem, which is quite
unique in the history of physics. Third, it was to become the fundamental
basis of twentieth century equilibrium statistical mechanics. A year
before Einstein's death in 1955, he was asked who were the most powerful
thinkers he had known. He replied (Ref. 1), ``Lorentz'', and added, ``I
never met Willard Gibbs; perhaps, had I done so, I might have placed him
beside Lorentz''.
Origin of Bose-Einstein
and Fermi-Dirac Statistics
In the last chapter of Gibbs' book mentioned
above, he found it necessary to insert a factor N! in the formula for the
free energy:
This factor made F an extensive quantity. Furthermore it was
convenient for treating mixtures of atoms. Later on the factor h^N was
inserted in the denominator to make the quantity under the logarithm
dimensionless. But the factor N! remained mysterious and was called the
problem of the ``absolute entropy constant''. It was believed to be
related to the fact that for identical particles, the phase space should
not be multiply counted, but the precise meaning of this factor,
especially for small N, was not clarified.
In June 1924 Bose's paper was published. He
derived Planck's radiation law by counting states of photons in a novel
way. As soon as Einstein saw this paper, he generalized it to the counting
of states of atoms, thereby predicting the phenomena of Bose-Einstein
condensation, a most daring and insightful extrapolation which has only
now been brilliantly experimentally confirmed.
A year and a half after Bose's and
Einstein's papers, upon reading Pauli's article on the exclusion
principle, Fermi realized in 1926 that he had now the concepts in hand to
discuss the thermodynamics of a collection of electrons. The results were
such fundamental concepts like the Fermi sea, the Fermi energy, etc..
According to Rasetti (Ref. 2), Fermi was not influenced by the earlier
work of Bose and of Einstein.
Also in 1926, Heisenberg pointed out that
the difference between the singlet and triplet energy levels of the
(1s)(2s) states of He was due to the difference of the symmetry of the
space wave function, which in turn was caused by the requirement of
antisymmetrization of the total wave function of the two spinning
electrons.
Finally in August 1926 Dirac developed the
general theory of the symmetry of wave functions of Bose-Einstein and
Fermi-Dirac particles.
Incidentally this chain of papers Einstein-Fermi-Heisenberg-Dirac
reveals in a dramatic way the differences of styles of these four great
physicists:
- Einstein's prediction of Bose-Einstein
condensation of free particles was against all intuitive concepts of
phase transitions at that time. To make such a prediction, without
full mathematical rigor, based on a novel counting method extrapolated
from photons to atoms, required a perception and a boldness that was
uniquely Einstein's.
- Fermi's paper formed the basis of all
subsequent theories about condensed matter physics. It has the
hallmark of Fermi's physics: the ability to capture the fundamentals
of the problem at hand and extract from it the essence that will
affect all future developments. Solidity and imagination marched
hand-in-hand in Fermi's work.
- Heisenberg's work produced the key idea
that on the one hand linked the symmetry of wave functions to Pauli's
exclusion principles and on the other hand resolved the great puzzle
of how the spin alignment of two electrons can affect the Coulomb
energy of the He atom. Furthermore the idea of the ``exchange
integral'' which originated in this paper later produced another great
achievement of Heisenberg's: the mechanism of ferromagnetism. However,
Heisenberg's paper was long on originality but short on elegance and
precision, a characteristic of all of Heisenberg's papers.
- In contrast, Dirac's papers were always
elegant and precise. They also tend to be the final word in the
problems that they address. In the case of his 1926 paper, very little
can be added later to his masterly analysis.
Early Discussions of Phase
Transitions in Statistical Mechanics
The development of quantum mechanics in
1925-1927 removed the difficulties that Gibbs had to face in checking his
rational foundation against experimental facts. Thus was born quantum
statistical mechanics. In the late 1920's and early 1930's, physicists and
chemists applied the new quantum statistical mechanics to many problems in
dilute gases and dilute solutions with great success.
Then in the mid 1930's, because of the
discovery of peaks in the C(p) versus T curve in alloys, the theory of
order-disorder transformations became quite fashionable. An ``order
parameter'' was introduced for the discussion of phase transitions. Such
theories are now called mean field theories, which actually was first used
by Weiss (Ref. 3) in 1907 for describing ferromagnetic transitions.
In 1937 J. Mayer attempted to formulate a
theory of liquid-gas transition without introducing mean fields by
examining the convergence properties of the virial series. There was a
``vigorous discussion'' of his ideas at the Van der Waals Centenary
Congress (Ref. 4) on November 26, 1937 in Amsterdam, followed in the next
months by elaborations/alternations of Mayer's theory. Incidentally, my
own entry into statistical mechanics was related in a way to Mayer's
theory. I was an undergraduate student in Kunming in 1941-1942 when
Professor J.S. Wang gave several lectures on this theory of Mayer's and on
subsequent developments. I did not then quite understand the complexities
of the theories, but became fascinated with the subject (Ref. 5). That led
to my working with Wang for my Master degree thesis on statistical
mechanics. As to Mayer's theory, some ten years later in two papers (Ref.
6) Lee and I cleared up the confusion in this field.
Onsager and the ``Ising
Disease''
In 1944, in an amazing paper, Onsager solved
the two dimensional Ising model rigorously. It was the first in a field
which undoubtedly will be covered in many presentations at this
Conference. His paper was very difficult to read because he did not
describe his strategy. He seemed to have a predilection for calculating
the commutators of every other expression in sight without telling what he
was aiming at. I still remember vividly today how I was frustrated in
trying to understand that paper, first when I was a graduate student in
China and then a graduate student in Chicago. It was many years later, in
March 1965, that I finally learned (Ref. 7) how it had come about that
Onsager was so fond of calculating those commutators.
Young physicists today may find it
surprising, even unbelievable, that in the 1950's the Ising model and
similar problems were not deemed important by most physicists. They were
considered arcane exercises, narrowly interesting, mathematically
seducing, but of little real consequence. There was the phrase (Ref. 8),
for example, of ``contracting the Ising disease''. In a recent article by
Dyson in my Festschrift (edited by S.T. Yau, published by the
International Press) he recalled how, in 1952, when he read my article
about the magnetization of the Ising model, he was impressed by the
beautiful complexity of the calculation and the beautiful simplicity of
the result, but felt I was wasting my time.
The situation dramatically changed around
1960 because of several developments:(1) the experimental discoveries
(Ref. 9) of divergences of specific heats near various phase transition
points; (2) theoretical work on the critical exponents led gradually to
the concept of universality and to some very useful inequalities among the
critical exponents; and (3) the proposal of a scaling law (Ref. 10). |