## Abstract

The definition of the fundamental quantity, the chemical potential, is badly confused in the literature: there are at least three distinct definitions in various books and papers. While they all give the same result in the thermodynamic limit, major differences between them can occur for finite systems, in anomalous cases even for finite systems as large as a cm^{3}. We resolve the situation by arguing that the chemical potential defined as the symbol μ conventionally appearing in the grand canonical density operator is the uniquely correct definition valid for all finite systems, the grand canonical ensemble being the only one of the various ensembles usually discussed (microcanonical, canonical, Gibbs, grand canonical) that is appropriate for statistical thermodynamics, whenever the chemical potential is physically relevant. The zero–temperature limit of this μ was derived by Perdew et al. for finite systems involving electrons, generally allowing for electron–electron interactions; we extend this derivation and, for semiconductors, we also consider the zero–T limit taken after the thermodynamic limit. The enormous finite size corrections (in macroscopic samples, e.g. 1 cm^{3}) for one rather common definition of the c.p., found recently by Shegelski within the standard effective mass model of an ideal intrinsic semiconductor, are discussed. Also, two very–small–system examples are given, including a quantum dot.

## Key Words

Statistical thermodynamics Insulators Thermodynamic limit Quantum dots## Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

## References

- 1.
- 2.
- 3.But later in his papers these quantities may be calculated either in the canonical or in the grand canonical ensemble.Google Scholar
- 4.C. Kittel,
*Introduction to Solid State Physics*, John Wiley and Sons, New York (1971).Google Scholar - 5.N. W. Ashcroft and N. D. Mermin,
*Solid State Physics*, Saunders College, Philadelphia (1976).Google Scholar - 6.This was called an ideal intrinsic semiconductor [1]; it is the usual textbook model where noninteracting electrons move in a periodic potential, treated by periodic boundary conditions (there are neither impurities nor surface states).Google Scholar
- 7.
- 8.The condition
*T*> 0 must be understood: the TL of φ can have a discontinuity at*T*= 0, as in the semiconductor model just discussed. I.e., φ (and ψ of ((3))) can depend on the order in which the TL and the limit*T*→0 are taken.Google Scholar - 9.H. B. Callen,
*Thermodynamics*, John Wiley and Sons, New York (1960).zbMATHGoogle Scholar - 10.
- 11.C. Kittel and H. Kroemer,
*Thermal Physics*, W. H. Freeman and Co., New York (1980).Google Scholar - 12.Fetter, A. L. and Walecka, J. D. (1971)
*Quantum Theory of Many-Particle Systems*, McGraw-Hill, New York-London.Google Scholar - 13.T. L. Hill,
*Thermodynamics of Small Systems*, W. A. Benjamin, Inc., New York (1964). Chap.15.Google Scholar - 14.P. M. Chaikin and T. C. Lubensky,
*Principles of condensed matter physics*, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK (1995).Google Scholar - 15.R. Baierlein, Am. J. Phys.
**69**: 423 (2001).CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar - 16.J. P. Perdew, R. G. Parr, M. Levy, J. L. Balduz, Jr.,
*Phys. Rev. Lett*.**49**: 1691 (1982). Regarding Eq. (10) of this paper, one should understand that the cases*N*=*Z*±1 are outside the stated allowed range (and are therefore incorrect for general*Z*). The result for*N*=*Z*is correct, and corresponds to (5), (7), and the*N*=*N*_{0}case of (32), present paper.Google Scholar - 17.J. P. Perdew, in
*Density-functional methods in Physics*, edited by R. M. Dreizler and J. da Providencia, Plenum Press, New York, 1985. p. 265.Google Scholar - 18.Non-integral average values of the number of particles were also considered in [16, 17].Google Scholar
- 19.
- 20.Erwin Schrödinger,
*Statistical Thermodynamics*, Cambridge University Press (1952).Google Scholar - 21.R. Parr, R. A. Donnelly, M. Levy and W. E. Palke,
*J. Chem. Phys*.**68**: 3801 (1978).CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar - 22.
- 23.E. P. Gyftopoulos and G. N. Hatsopoulos,
*Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA*,**60**: 786 (1968). This work states that (5) follows from (7), but doesn't mention a convexity requirement (the result does not follow if (24) is replaced by a concavity condition).Google Scholar - 24.L. Pauling,
*The nature of the chemical bond*, Cornell University Press, New York, (1960).Google Scholar - 25.R. C. Tolman,
*The Principles of Statistical Mechanics*, Oxford University Press, (1938), § 140 (b).Google Scholar - 26.L. D. Landau and E. M. Lifschitz,
*Statistical Physics*, Chap.XV, Pergamon Press, New York (1969).Google Scholar - 27.Magnetic properties of systems of localized spins are examples where the chemical potential may not be physically relevant.Google Scholar
- 28.Shegelski [1] has argued that the canonical ensemble is most appropriate for a semiconductor, since it has a fixed number of electrons. I fault this argument by noting that, physically, fluctuations in the number of electrons will occur in semiconductors as well as in metals. This is particularly true for the situation where the semiconductor is put in contact with a piece of metal in order to consider electrical current. Furthermore, these (relative) fluctuations for the grand canonical ensemble within the noninteracting effective mass model can be seen to be negligible for a macroscopic semiconductor.Google Scholar
- 29.For discussion of the use of the canonical and grand canonical ensembles in an example even where the average number of particles is fixed, see D. Cabib and T. A. Kaplan,
*Phys. Rev*. B**7**: 2199 (1973). Erratum: the + in the line just below eq. (4) should be -.Google Scholar - 30.The formal generalization of (19) and (18) to a multi-component system is straightforward. One has
*N*_{i}particles of type*i*, \(\mu \hat{N}\) in (13) is replaced by \(\sum \mu_i \hat{N}_i\), (18) is replaced by \(\partial\mathcal{F}/\partial\mathcal{N}_i=\mu_i, \mathcal{N}_i\) is the expectation value of*N*_{i}, and the derivative is taken holding the other \(\mathcal{N}_j\) constant.Google Scholar - 31.S. R. De Groot,
*Thermodynamics of irreversible processes*, North-Holland Publishing Co., Amsterdam (1951).zbMATHGoogle Scholar - 32.F. J. Blatt,
*Physics of electronic conduction in solids*, McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York (1968).Google Scholar - 33.D. K. Ferry, and R. O. Grondin,
*Physics of submicron devices*, Plenum Press, New York and London (1991).Google Scholar - 34.C. Cohen-Tannoudji, J. Dupont-Roc, and G. Grynberg,
*Atom-Photon Interactions*, John Wiley and Sons., New York, Chapter IV (1992).Google Scholar - 35.S. Tarucha, in
*Mesoscopic Physics and Electronics*, T. Ando, Y. Arakawa, K. Furuya, S. Komiyama, and H. Nakashina (eds), Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Chapter 2.4. (1998).Google Scholar - 36.
- 37.R. C. Ashoori, H.L. Stormer, J. S. Weiner, L. N. Pfeiffer, S.J. Pearton, K.W. Baldwin, and K. W. West,
*Phys. Rev. Lett*.**68**: 3088 (1992).CrossRefPubMedADSGoogle Scholar - 38.
- 39.J. Schliemann, D. Loss, and A. H. MacDonald,
*Phys. Rev*. B**63**: 085311 (2001).CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar - 40.T. A. Kaplan and C. Piermarocchi, Phys. Rev. B
**70**: 161311(R) (2004).Google Scholar - 41.
- 42.L. P. Kouwenhoven, D. G. Austing, S. Tarucha,
*Rep. Prog. Phys*.**64**: 701 (2001).CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar - 43.S. Tessmer, priv. comm.Google Scholar
- 44.There is another source of peak width in addition to the thermal effect considered here, namely that due to the hopping of electrons between the levels of the dot and the overlapping continuum of the leads. Under certain conditions the thermal broadening can be the dominant effect. See [41].Google Scholar
- 45.
- 46.For a more realistic but still simple description of a quantum dot, see Kastner's
*Physics Today*article [41].Google Scholar - 47.
- 48.E. H. Lieb, in (eds) R. M. Dreizler and J. da Providencia,
*Density-functional methods in Physics*, Plenum Press, New York, 1985. p. 11.Google Scholar - 49.J. F. Harrison, private communication.Google Scholar
- 50.M. E. Raikh, L. I. Glazman, L. E. Zhukov,
*Phys. Rev. Lett*.**77**: 1354 (1996).CrossRefPubMedADSGoogle Scholar - 51.This is equivalent to the theorem of reference [10] for NEM's.Google Scholar
- 52.This disagrees with the condition given in [16] for the dominance of these terms.Google Scholar
- 53.G. Zhislin,
*Trudy Moskov Mat. Obsc*.**9**: 81 (1960); T. A. Kaplan and W. H. Kleiner,*Phys. Rev*.**156**:1 (1967).Google Scholar - 54.N. B. Hannay, in
*Semiconductors*, edited by N. B. Hannay, Reinhold Publishing Corp., New York (1959), p.31.Google Scholar - 55.S. Wolfram (1991, reprinted in 1993 with corrections).
*Mathematica*, Addison-Wesley, New York.Google Scholar - 56.N. G. De Bruijn,
*Asymptotic Methods in Analysis*, Section 2.4., Dover Publications, New York (1981).zbMATHGoogle Scholar - 57.These temperatures are high enough to justify the replacement of the sums by integrals.Google Scholar