Talk:Einstein solid

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)

SHO??

... Harmonic Oscillator?? Why not QHO? --131.174.17.91 (talk) 17:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

approximation

${\left(q+N^{\prime }-1\right)! \over q!(N^{\prime }-1)!}={\left(q+N^{\prime }\right)! \over q!N^{\prime }!}$ is not an approximation... is it? --D昌양 (Talk) 18:13, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Wait, my bad. It is. --D昌양 (Talk) 19:28, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Einstein solid/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

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.

Last edited at 13:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 14:16, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Sentence Fragment

The article currently includes the line, "Although the Einstein model of the solid predicts the heat capacity accurately at high temperatures, and in this limit [equation], which is equivalent to Dulong–Petit law." This is not a complete sentence. Shankar Sivarajan (talk) 01:53, 22 November 2023 (UTC)