Talk:Einstein solid

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, which collaborates on articles related to physics.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. [FAQ]
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating within physics.
Help with this template Comments: edit – history – watch – refresh I believe that this topic requires a high level of importance in physics. The Einstein solid is a model that is very important to connecting statistical physics to thermal dynamics. The simplifications taken to model an Einstein solid both allow for analytical solutions to be reached and allow some conformity to real measured trends and values established experimentally. In this article there should be some better discussion of the limits of the functions discussed (such as the way the heat capacity behaves at both high and low temperatures). Any physics text on thermodynamics will probably have sufficient work done in this area.

I think the article is ok. Right at the bottom: "exercise fort the reader". I think this should be left out, because wikipedia is not a textbook.

[edit] You can do

You do it!!

[edit] Dispute

This page seems ok but writing the formula in terms of hyperbolic functions is odd. More frequently in text books it the heat capacity is expressed as exponentials (cf. Deby model wiki page). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lgmac (talk • contribs) 12:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone actually dispute anything on this page? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.67.115.253 (talk) 23:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

Well, there is some sloppiness with replacing the term quantum harmonic oscillator with SHO (simple harmonic oscillator), since the energy of a SHO isn't quantized. Otherwise, I would need to work through math myself to say if there is any other issue. Achastai 13:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I went through the algebra, and got the same results as the author. -Marcel, NY

This algebra is firm but needs to be more preciese in it's naming of certain states and quantities. - UK

I'd just gone through the algebra, but had lost the factor of three I knew I needed, and this helped. It seems correct to me. -KT, UK

This is correct, the mathematics is trivial - JP Physics MPhys Oxon

I dispute the use of the word quickly in the introduction to the second derivation. The only difference between the two derivations is the use of the microcanonical vs canonical ensembles, and the 'quickness' of obtaining a correct result using either of those methods is not only subject to the individual, but is irrelevant to solving the problem. Additionally, neither definition can really be considered 'alternate' as that would imply that one were more significant, whereas they solve an equivalent problem using different methods, making similar assumptions (except microcanonical vs canonical).—Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.216.1.151 (talk) 05:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)