Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                

Application of Haldane’s statistical correlation theory in classical systems

Projesh Kumar Roy projesh@nitt.edu Department of Chemistry, National Institute of Technology Tiruchirappalli, Tanjore Main Road, NH83, Tiruchirappalli, Tamil Nadu–620015, India
(June 20, 2024)
Abstract

This letter investigates the application of Haldane’s statistical correlation theory in classical systems. A modified statistical correlation theory has been proposed by including non-linearity into the original theory of Haldane. It is shown that indistinguishability can be introduced as a form of external statistical correlation into distinguishable systems. It is proved that this modified statistical correlation theory can be used to derive classical fractional exclusion statistics (CFES) using maximum entropy methods for a self-correlating system. An extended non-linear correlation model based on power series expansion is also proposed, which can produce various intermediate statistical models.

I Introduction

Since the inception of statistical mechanics, there were several attempts Gentile j. (1940); Tsallis (1988); March et al. (1993); March (1997); Acharya and Swamy (1994) to unify all fundamental statistical theories, i.e., Fermi-Dirac (FD) statistics, Bose-Einstein (BE) statistics, and Maxwell-Boltzmann (MB) statistics. The first comprehensive approach for such a unified theory was taken by Haldane Haldane (1991) for quantum systems. In a nutshell, the postulate of Haldane states that the statistical correlation in quantum systems can be described as a reduction of the total available degenerate states (gi~~subscript𝑔𝑖\tilde{g_{i}}over~ start_ARG italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG) at an energy level (ϵi[0,]subscriptitalic-ϵ𝑖0\epsilon_{i}\in[0,\infty]italic_ϵ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ [ 0 , ∞ ]) due to the population (nisubscript𝑛𝑖n_{i}italic_n start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT) of the building blocks at the same energy level. The nature of the reduction was assumed to be linear, which resulted in the following equation,

gi~=giγni~subscript𝑔𝑖subscript𝑔𝑖𝛾subscript𝑛𝑖\tilde{g_{i}}=g_{i}-\gamma n_{i}over~ start_ARG italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG = italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_γ italic_n start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT (1)

where gisubscript𝑔𝑖g_{i}italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is the number of ideal degenerate states at ni=0subscript𝑛𝑖0n_{i}=0italic_n start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 0, and γ𝛾\gammaitalic_γ is the correlation factor independent of the system size. Applying this idea in Bosonic systems, Wu Wu (1994) was able to derive an equation for intermediate statistics which interpolates between Bose-Einstein (γ𝛾\gammaitalic_γ = 0) and Fermi-Dirac (γ𝛾\gammaitalic_γ = 1) statistics.

Application of Haldane-Wu (HW) statistics can be found in the field of 2D-anyones Dasnières de Veigy and Ouvry (1995); de Veigy and Ouvry (1995), Laughlin liquids Camino et al. (2005); Arovas et al. (1984), adsorption of polyatomic molecules Riccardo et al. (2004, 2005); Cerofolini (2006); Dávila et al. (2009a, b); Matoz-Fernandez et al. (2011); Matoz-Fernandez and Ramirez-Pastor (2014); Riccardo et al. (2019), etc. A similar statistical theory was proposed by A. Polychronakos–namely the Polychronakos statistics (AP) Polychronakos (1996a, b); Chung and Hassanabadi (2018); Hoyuelos (2018)– which avoids the negative probability problem in HW statistics Nayak and Wilczek (1994); Polychronakos (1996a, b); Chaturvedi and Srinivasan (1997a, b); Murthy and Shankar (1999). Various other forms of intermediate statistics also exist in the literature Niven (2009); Niven and Grendar (2009); Ourabah and Tribeche (2018); Abutaleb (2014); Yan (2021). Such models can be termed quantum fractional exclusion statistics (QFES) models as they inherently assume the quantum nature of the systems.

Recently, a theory of intermediate statistics based on classical MB statistics–namely, the classical fractional exclusion statistics (CFES) Roy (2022)–was derived using the maximum entropy (MaxEnt) methods. Three major constraints were used during the derivation: (i) constant energy, (ii) constant particle number, and (iii) a special constrain, which can be written as,

C=i(niagia1)𝐶subscript𝑖superscriptsubscript𝑛𝑖𝑎superscriptsubscript𝑔𝑖𝑎1C=\sum_{i}\Bigg{(}\frac{n_{i}^{a}}{g_{i}^{a-1}}\Bigg{)}italic_C = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( divide start_ARG italic_n start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ) (2)

Where a𝑎aitalic_a is an integer and a>0𝑎0a>0italic_a > 0. Interestingly, using the constraints on the classical MB statistics framework, it was possible to derive FD and BE statistics at a=2𝑎2a=2italic_a = 2. However, the origin of the special constraint is still not clear. A concept of varying indistinguishability was proposed in Ref. Roy (2022), which showed that this factor is essentially a bridge between the MB and BE statistics.

This letter proposes a similar derivation of CFES using a non-linear Haldane-type statistical correlation theory for indistinguishable systems. I show that using this modified statistical correlation theory in classical systems, one can also arrive at the CFES-type equation. The letter is organized as follows–in section I, I describe the non-linear modifications to Eq. 1. In section II, I describe a self-correlating system following the modified statistical correlation theory. In section III, I describe extended non-linear modifications using power series expansion. Finally, I conclude in section V with an outlook.

II Concept of Indistinguishability: Zero-moment theorem

In the subsequent letter, the word particle will be used to denote an entity whose energy distribution follows the MaxEnt principle. Let’s consider that a single species of identical particles are present in our system. As described in the previous section, Haldane’s theory of statistical correlations in quantum systems proposes that the reduction of the degeneracy factor (gisubscript𝑔𝑖g_{i}italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT) in a quantum state ϵisubscriptitalic-ϵ𝑖\epsilon_{i}italic_ϵ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is proportional to the population (nisubscript𝑛𝑖n_{i}italic_n start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT) at the same state. In this section, I demonstrate an ab-initio approach to understanding the concept of indistinguishability through the lens of statistical correlation theory. I consider that the reduction in gisubscript𝑔𝑖g_{i}italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT of energy level ϵisubscriptitalic-ϵ𝑖\epsilon_{i}italic_ϵ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is dependent on not just nisubscript𝑛𝑖n_{i}italic_n start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT but also on the populations at all available energy levels ϵjsubscriptitalic-ϵ𝑗\epsilon_{j}italic_ϵ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. Moreover, I consider the possibility that the net contribution to statistical correlation from ϵjsubscriptitalic-ϵ𝑗\epsilon_{j}italic_ϵ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT state to ϵisubscriptitalic-ϵ𝑖\epsilon_{i}italic_ϵ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT state may depend on the different population distribution functions of the particles (p(njk)𝑝subscript𝑛𝑗𝑘p(n_{jk})italic_p ( italic_n start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT )) at different degenerate stats (gjksubscript𝑔𝑗𝑘g_{jk}italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT) of energy level ϵjsubscriptitalic-ϵ𝑗\epsilon_{j}italic_ϵ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. The overall contribution of the statistical correlation to state ϵisubscriptitalic-ϵ𝑖\epsilon_{i}italic_ϵ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is weighted by correlation factors γjksubscript𝛾𝑗𝑘\gamma_{jk}italic_γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, which may differ for different energy levels and degenerate states. Lastly, I impose non-linearity to the net correlation contribution from gjksubscript𝑔𝑗𝑘g_{jk}italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, by raising an exponent m𝑚mitalic_m to the population factor njksubscript𝑛𝑗𝑘n_{jk}italic_n start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. Then, the overall equation takes the shape,

gi~=gijkγjknjkm~subscript𝑔𝑖subscript𝑔𝑖subscript𝑗subscript𝑘subscript𝛾𝑗𝑘superscriptsubscript𝑛𝑗𝑘𝑚\tilde{g_{i}}=g_{i}-\sum_{j}\sum_{k}\gamma_{jk}n_{jk}^{m}over~ start_ARG italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG = italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT (3)

In this model, all particles are distinguishable since the correlation contributions from each gjksubscript𝑔𝑗𝑘g_{jk}italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT level can be different. In the next section, I will show that m𝑚mitalic_m and γ𝛾\gammaitalic_γ factors become dependent on each other for intermediate statistics.

Next, I decompose this model by imposing indistinguishability conditions. Firstly, I assume γjksubscript𝛾𝑗𝑘\gamma_{jk}italic_γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT to be a universal constant and independent of njksubscript𝑛𝑗𝑘n_{jk}italic_n start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. Moreover, I assume that the correlation factor γjkγjsubscript𝛾𝑗𝑘subscript𝛾𝑗\gamma_{jk}\equiv\gamma_{j}italic_γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≡ italic_γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT; i.e., it does not depend on the properties of degenerate states. This enables us to assume that the correlation effects exerted by the particles belonging to different gjksubscript𝑔𝑗𝑘g_{jk}italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT are similar. Secondly, I assume that for all practical purposes, the probability of finding a particle at any of the degenerate states k𝑘kitalic_k of energy level ϵjsubscriptitalic-ϵ𝑗\epsilon_{j}italic_ϵ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is equal and independent of k𝑘kitalic_k; i.e., p(njk)nj/gj𝑝subscript𝑛𝑗𝑘subscript𝑛𝑗subscript𝑔𝑗p(n_{jk})\equiv n_{j}/g_{j}italic_p ( italic_n start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ≡ italic_n start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT / italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. Because of the uniform distribution of the particles at different degenerate states, one cannot distinguish between the individual particles present at the same energy level ϵjsubscriptitalic-ϵ𝑗\epsilon_{j}italic_ϵ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT using their correlation contributions γjksubscript𝛾𝑗𝑘\gamma_{jk}italic_γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and populations njksubscript𝑛𝑗𝑘n_{jk}italic_n start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. As a result, they become indistinguishable from each other under these approximations.

Therefore, for such indistinguishable particles, one can state that, the standard deviation of the p(njk)𝑝subscript𝑛𝑗𝑘p(n_{jk})italic_p ( italic_n start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) function concerning k𝑘kitalic_k states is zero. Going one step further, I propose a theorem as described below.

Zero-moment theorem: The mthsuperscript𝑚thm^{\text{th}}italic_m start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT th end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT order moment (σm(ϵj)|m2conditionalsubscript𝜎𝑚subscriptitalic-ϵ𝑗𝑚2\sigma_{m}(\epsilon_{j})|m\geq 2italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_ϵ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) | italic_m ≥ 2) of p(njk)𝑝subscript𝑛𝑗𝑘p(n_{jk})italic_p ( italic_n start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) function at different k𝑘kitalic_k states of an energy level ϵjsubscriptitalic-ϵ𝑗\epsilon_{j}italic_ϵ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is zero, i.e.,

σm(ϵj)=knjkmgj(knjkgj)m=0subscript𝜎𝑚subscriptitalic-ϵ𝑗subscript𝑘superscriptsubscript𝑛𝑗𝑘𝑚subscript𝑔𝑗superscriptsubscript𝑘subscript𝑛𝑗𝑘subscript𝑔𝑗𝑚0\sigma_{m}(\epsilon_{j})=\frac{\sum_{k}n_{jk}^{m}}{g_{j}}-\left(\frac{\sum_{k}% n_{jk}}{g_{j}}\right)^{m}=0italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_ϵ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = divide start_ARG ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG - ( divide start_ARG ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = 0 (4)

which leads to,

knjkm=njmgjm1subscript𝑘superscriptsubscript𝑛𝑗𝑘𝑚superscriptsubscript𝑛𝑗𝑚superscriptsubscript𝑔𝑗𝑚1\sum_{k}n_{jk}^{m}=\frac{n_{j}^{m}}{g_{j}^{m-1}}∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = divide start_ARG italic_n start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG (5)

A corollary of this theorem is that m𝑚mitalic_m has to be an integer to satisfy the condition in Eq. 5. We can now fully eliminate the k𝑘kitalic_k-summand in Eq. 3 by substituting Eq. 5 to Eq. 3 as,

gi~=gijγj(njmgjm1)~subscript𝑔𝑖subscript𝑔𝑖subscript𝑗subscript𝛾𝑗superscriptsubscript𝑛𝑗𝑚superscriptsubscript𝑔𝑗𝑚1\tilde{g_{i}}=g_{i}-\sum_{j}\gamma_{j}\bigg{(}\frac{n_{j}^{m}}{g_{j}^{m-1}}% \bigg{)}over~ start_ARG italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG = italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( divide start_ARG italic_n start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ) (6)

It is straightforward to show that if one disregards all contributions from the other states except the ithsuperscript𝑖𝑡i^{th}italic_i start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_t italic_h end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT state; i.e., γjγδisubscript𝛾𝑗𝛾subscript𝛿𝑖\gamma_{j}\equiv\gamma\delta_{i}italic_γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≡ italic_γ italic_δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT where δisubscript𝛿𝑖\delta_{i}italic_δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is the Kronecker δ𝛿\deltaitalic_δ; Eq. 1 can be recovered from Eq. 6 at the linear correlation case at m=1𝑚1m=1italic_m = 1. Note that, the linear correlation case exerts a maximum correlation effect on gisubscript𝑔𝑖g_{i}italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT.

Eq. 5 represents the mathematical description of the concept of indistinguishability, derived in the light of statistical correlation theory. It clearly describes the origin of the constraint C𝐶Citalic_C in Eq. 2 and how it is linked to indistinguishability. The dependency of statistical correlation on indistinguishability is an interesting aspect of this analysis. It provides an alternate path for introducing indistinguishability in a classical distinguishable system, rather than changing the microstate counting method. In the following section, I show that the application of Eq. 6 to classical MB statistics directly gives rise to the CFES equation.

III Self-correlating classical system

The non-linear correlation theory can certainly be used to modify the microstate counting formula of BE statistics (WBEsubscript𝑊BEW_{\text{BE}}italic_W start_POSTSUBSCRIPT BE end_POSTSUBSCRIPT) and derive different forms of QFES Wu (1994). In this paper, I apply this theory to the classical systems and investigate the changes in classical MB statistics (WMBsubscript𝑊MBW_{\text{MB}}italic_W start_POSTSUBSCRIPT MB end_POSTSUBSCRIPT) due to statistical correlations. Let’s assume that the system is self-correlating, i.e., a single species of identical particles are present in the system. Let’s denote their un-optimized population with a slightly different notation, νisubscript𝜈𝑖\nu_{i}italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. As shown in the previous section, indistinguishability can be introduced in a classical system in the form of a statistical correlation. Using Eq. 6, I can easily show that WMBsubscript𝑊MBW_{\text{MB}}italic_W start_POSTSUBSCRIPT MB end_POSTSUBSCRIPT takes the form,

WMB=WMBidi{11gijγj(νjmgjm1)}νisubscript𝑊MBsuperscriptsubscript𝑊MBidsubscriptproduct𝑖superscript11subscript𝑔𝑖subscript𝑗subscript𝛾𝑗superscriptsubscript𝜈𝑗𝑚superscriptsubscript𝑔𝑗𝑚1subscript𝜈𝑖W_{\text{MB}}=W_{\text{MB}}^{\text{id}}\prod_{i}\Bigg{\{}1-\frac{1}{g_{i}}\sum% _{j}\gamma_{j}\Bigg{(}\frac{\nu_{j}^{m}}{g_{j}^{m-1}}\Bigg{)}\Bigg{\}}^{\nu_{i}}italic_W start_POSTSUBSCRIPT MB end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_W start_POSTSUBSCRIPT MB end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT id end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∏ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT { 1 - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( divide start_ARG italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ) } start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT (7)

where WMBid=giνi/νi!superscriptsubscript𝑊MBidsuperscriptsubscript𝑔𝑖subscript𝜈𝑖subscript𝜈𝑖W_{\text{MB}}^{\text{id}}=g_{i}^{\nu_{i}}/\nu_{i}!italic_W start_POSTSUBSCRIPT MB end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT id end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT / italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ! is the ideal number of the microstates. At a dilute condition; i.e., νi/gi0similar-tosubscript𝜈𝑖subscript𝑔𝑖0\nu_{i}/g_{i}\sim 0italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT / italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∼ 0; one can derive the corresponding particle distribution in the following manner. Using MaxEnt method, one can maximize WMBsubscript𝑊MBW_{\text{MB}}italic_W start_POSTSUBSCRIPT MB end_POSTSUBSCRIPT with respect to νisubscript𝜈𝑖\nu_{i}italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT to get the optimized population, νi,maxnisubscript𝜈𝑖maxsubscript𝑛𝑖\nu_{i,\text{max}}\equiv n_{i}italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i , max end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≡ italic_n start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, as,

lnWMBνisubscript𝑊MBsubscript𝜈𝑖\displaystyle\frac{\partial\ln W_{\text{MB}}}{\partial\nu_{i}}divide start_ARG ∂ roman_ln italic_W start_POSTSUBSCRIPT MB end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG ∂ italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG =lnWMBidνi+ln{11gijγj(νjmgjm1)}absentsuperscriptsubscript𝑊MBidsubscript𝜈𝑖11subscript𝑔𝑖subscript𝑗subscript𝛾𝑗superscriptsubscript𝜈𝑗𝑚superscriptsubscript𝑔𝑗𝑚1\displaystyle=\frac{\partial\ln W_{\text{MB}}^{\text{id}}}{\partial\nu_{i}}+% \ln\Bigg{\{}1-\frac{1}{g_{i}}\sum_{j}\gamma_{j}\Bigg{(}\frac{\nu_{j}^{m}}{g_{j% }^{m-1}}\Bigg{)}\Bigg{\}}= divide start_ARG ∂ roman_ln italic_W start_POSTSUBSCRIPT MB end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT id end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG ∂ italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG + roman_ln { 1 - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( divide start_ARG italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ) } (8)
mγiνim/gim1{gijγj(νjm/gjm1)}𝑚subscript𝛾𝑖superscriptsubscript𝜈𝑖𝑚superscriptsubscript𝑔𝑖𝑚1subscript𝑔𝑖subscript𝑗subscript𝛾𝑗superscriptsubscript𝜈𝑗𝑚superscriptsubscript𝑔𝑗𝑚1\displaystyle-\frac{m\gamma_{i}\nu_{i}^{m}/g_{i}^{m-1}}{\{g_{i}-\sum_{j}\gamma% _{j}(\nu_{j}^{m}/g_{j}^{m-1})\}}- divide start_ARG italic_m italic_γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT / italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG { italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT / italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) } end_ARG
=0absent0\displaystyle=0= 0

which leads to,

nisubscript𝑛𝑖\displaystyle n_{i}italic_n start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT =gie(α+βϵi){11gijγj(njmgjm1)}absentsubscript𝑔𝑖superscript𝑒𝛼𝛽subscriptitalic-ϵ𝑖11subscript𝑔𝑖subscript𝑗subscript𝛾𝑗superscriptsubscript𝑛𝑗𝑚superscriptsubscript𝑔𝑗𝑚1\displaystyle=g_{i}e^{-(\alpha+\beta\epsilon_{i})}\Bigg{\{}1-\frac{1}{g_{i}}% \sum_{j}\gamma_{j}\Bigg{(}\frac{n_{j}^{m}}{g_{j}^{m-1}}\Bigg{)}\Bigg{\}}= italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - ( italic_α + italic_β italic_ϵ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT { 1 - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( divide start_ARG italic_n start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ) } (9)
exp{mγinim/gim1gijγj(njm/gjm1)}𝑚subscript𝛾𝑖superscriptsubscript𝑛𝑖𝑚superscriptsubscript𝑔𝑖𝑚1subscript𝑔𝑖subscript𝑗subscript𝛾𝑗superscriptsubscript𝑛𝑗𝑚superscriptsubscript𝑔𝑗𝑚1\displaystyle\exp\Bigg{\{}-\frac{m\gamma_{i}n_{i}^{m}/g_{i}^{m-1}}{g_{i}-\sum_% {j}\gamma_{j}(n_{j}^{m}/g_{j}^{m-1})}\Bigg{\}}roman_exp { - divide start_ARG italic_m italic_γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT / italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_n start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT / italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) end_ARG }
gi~e(α+βϵi){1mγi(nimgi~gim1)} ; using gi>>niabsent~subscript𝑔𝑖superscript𝑒𝛼𝛽subscriptitalic-ϵ𝑖1𝑚subscript𝛾𝑖superscriptsubscript𝑛𝑖𝑚~subscript𝑔𝑖superscriptsubscript𝑔𝑖𝑚1 ; using gi>>ni\displaystyle\approx\tilde{g_{i}}e^{-(\alpha+\beta\epsilon_{i})}\Bigg{\{}1-m% \gamma_{i}\Bigg{(}\frac{n_{i}^{m}}{\tilde{g_{i}}g_{i}^{m-1}}\Bigg{)}\Bigg{\}}% \text{ ; using $g_{i}>>n_{i}$}≈ over~ start_ARG italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - ( italic_α + italic_β italic_ϵ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT { 1 - italic_m italic_γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( divide start_ARG italic_n start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG over~ start_ARG italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ) } ; using italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT > > italic_n start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT
=gie(α+βϵi){gi~gimγi(nimgim)}absentsubscript𝑔𝑖superscript𝑒𝛼𝛽subscriptitalic-ϵ𝑖~subscript𝑔𝑖subscript𝑔𝑖𝑚subscript𝛾𝑖superscriptsubscript𝑛𝑖𝑚superscriptsubscript𝑔𝑖𝑚\displaystyle=g_{i}e^{-(\alpha+\beta\epsilon_{i})}\Bigg{\{}\frac{\tilde{g_{i}}% }{g_{i}}-m\gamma_{i}\Bigg{(}\frac{n_{i}^{m}}{g_{i}^{m}}\Bigg{)}\Bigg{\}}= italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - ( italic_α + italic_β italic_ϵ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT { divide start_ARG over~ start_ARG italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG end_ARG start_ARG italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG - italic_m italic_γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( divide start_ARG italic_n start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ) }

where α=βμ𝛼𝛽𝜇\alpha=\beta\muitalic_α = italic_β italic_μ and β=(1/kBT)𝛽1subscript𝑘B𝑇\beta=(1/k_{\text{B}}T)italic_β = ( 1 / italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT B end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T ) are the Lagrange parameters related to the chemical potential (μ𝜇\muitalic_μ) and temperature (T𝑇Titalic_T) of the system. One can show, if γiγδisubscript𝛾𝑖𝛾subscript𝛿𝑖\gamma_{i}\equiv\gamma\delta_{i}italic_γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≡ italic_γ italic_δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, Eq. 9 reduces to the CFES equation Roy (2022) as,

ni=gie(α+βϵi){1(m+1)γ(nimgim)}subscript𝑛𝑖subscript𝑔𝑖superscript𝑒𝛼𝛽subscriptitalic-ϵ𝑖1𝑚1𝛾superscriptsubscript𝑛𝑖𝑚superscriptsubscript𝑔𝑖𝑚n_{i}=g_{i}e^{-(\alpha+\beta\epsilon_{i})}\Bigg{\{}1-(m+1)\gamma\Bigg{(}\frac{% n_{i}^{m}}{g_{i}^{m}}\Bigg{)}\Bigg{\}}italic_n start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - ( italic_α + italic_β italic_ϵ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT { 1 - ( italic_m + 1 ) italic_γ ( divide start_ARG italic_n start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ) } (10)

where γ𝛾\gammaitalic_γ corresponds to the third Lagrange parameter and m𝑚mitalic_m is the exponent 111Note that, the exponent m𝑚mitalic_m is shifted by 1 in this derivation method as compared to Ref. Roy (2022) described in Ref. Roy (2022). Consequently, one can derive the constraint C𝐶Citalic_C for the population distribution in Eq. 10 in a retrospective way as,

C=i(nim+1gim)𝐶subscript𝑖superscriptsubscript𝑛𝑖𝑚1superscriptsubscript𝑔𝑖𝑚C=\sum_{i}\Bigg{(}\frac{n_{i}^{m+1}}{g_{i}^{m}}\Bigg{)}italic_C = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( divide start_ARG italic_n start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m + 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ) (11)

The relationship between γ𝛾\gammaitalic_γ and m𝑚mitalic_m satisfy the equation,

nc={1(m+1)γ}1/msubscript𝑛csuperscript1𝑚1𝛾1𝑚n_{\text{c}}=\Bigg{\{}\frac{1}{(m+1)\gamma}\Bigg{\}}^{1/m}italic_n start_POSTSUBSCRIPT c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = { divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG ( italic_m + 1 ) italic_γ end_ARG } start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 / italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT (12)

where ncsubscript𝑛cn_{\text{c}}italic_n start_POSTSUBSCRIPT c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is the maximum occupancy numbers at all available degenerate states. An interesting question comes up about the limits of m𝑚mitalic_m. In the previous section, I have already shown that m𝑚mitalic_m has to be an integer to satisfy the zero-moment theorem. If one only considers Eq. 10, m=[1,0,]𝑚10m=[-1,0,\infty]italic_m = [ - 1 , 0 , ∞ ] will produce traditional MB statistics, as proved in Ref. Roy (2022). However, if one considers Eq. 6 as well, m=0𝑚0m=0italic_m = 0 state become unphysical as γ𝛾\gamma\to\inftyitalic_γ → ∞ according to Eq. 12, which leads to g~isubscript~𝑔𝑖\tilde{g}_{i}\to-\inftyover~ start_ARG italic_g end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT → - ∞. Similarly, for m=1𝑚1m=-1italic_m = - 1, g~isubscript~𝑔𝑖\tilde{g}_{i}\to\inftyover~ start_ARG italic_g end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT → ∞ at ni0subscript𝑛𝑖0n_{i}\to 0italic_n start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT → 0. Therefore, under the modified statistical correlation theory, the limits of m𝑚mitalic_m is m1𝑚1\infty\geq m\geq 1∞ ≥ italic_m ≥ 1. Here, m𝑚m\to\inftyitalic_m → ∞ and γ0𝛾0\gamma\to 0italic_γ → 0 state is the only allowed state where MB statistics can be recovered. Thus, Eq. 10 is truly unifying statistical theory that encompasses properties MB (m=,γ=0formulae-sequence𝑚𝛾0m=\infty,\gamma=0italic_m = ∞ , italic_γ = 0), FD (m=1,γ=1formulae-sequence𝑚1𝛾1m=1,\gamma=1italic_m = 1 , italic_γ = 1), and BE (m=1,γ=1formulae-sequence𝑚1𝛾1m=1,\gamma=-1italic_m = 1 , italic_γ = - 1) statistics, as well as their intermediate statistics.

IV Extended non-linear models

It might be possible to use functions other than the simple exponent in Eq. 6 to introduce non-linearity in the statistical correlation. However, elimination of the k𝑘kitalic_k summand in Eq. 3 is necessary to introduce indistinguishability in any non-linear model. The exponent model was perhaps the simplest where such elimination was easy because of the zero-moment theorem. Another way to study other forms of non-linearity, which will also ensure the elimination of the k𝑘kitalic_k summand, is to use a power series expansion of njksubscript𝑛𝑗𝑘n_{jk}italic_n start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT as,

g~j=gjjkγjk(l=0blnjkl)subscript~𝑔𝑗subscript𝑔𝑗subscript𝑗subscript𝑘subscript𝛾𝑗𝑘superscriptsubscript𝑙0subscript𝑏𝑙superscriptsubscript𝑛𝑗𝑘𝑙\tilde{g}_{j}=g_{j}-\sum_{j}\sum_{k}\gamma_{jk}\Bigg{(}\sum_{l=0}^{\infty}b_{l% }n_{jk}^{l}\Bigg{)}over~ start_ARG italic_g end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_l end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) (13)

where blsubscript𝑏𝑙b_{l}italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l end_POSTSUBSCRIPT’s are arbitrary constants chosen in a way that lblnjklsubscript𝑙subscript𝑏𝑙superscriptsubscript𝑛𝑗𝑘𝑙\sum_{l}b_{l}n_{jk}^{l}∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_l end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is converging and finite valued function. Using zero-moment theorem and γjkγjsubscript𝛾𝑗𝑘subscript𝛾𝑗\gamma_{jk}\equiv\gamma_{j}italic_γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≡ italic_γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, I get,

g~j=gjjγj(l=0blnjlgjl1)subscript~𝑔𝑗subscript𝑔𝑗subscript𝑗subscript𝛾𝑗superscriptsubscript𝑙0subscript𝑏𝑙superscriptsubscript𝑛𝑗𝑙superscriptsubscript𝑔𝑗𝑙1\tilde{g}_{j}=g_{j}-\sum_{j}\gamma_{j}\Bigg{(}\sum_{l=0}^{\infty}b_{l}\frac{n_% {j}^{l}}{g_{j}^{l-1}}\Bigg{)}over~ start_ARG italic_g end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG italic_n start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_l end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_l - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ) (14)

which removes all k𝑘kitalic_k summands in Eq. 13 and introduce indistinguishability in the model. Such elimination of k𝑘kitalic_k summands is not possible for a similar power series expansion njksubscript𝑛𝑗𝑘n_{jk}italic_n start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT with l<0𝑙0l<0italic_l < 0, hence they are not allowed. Using the similar methods as described in the previous section, one can derive the optimal population distribution (for γiδiγsubscript𝛾𝑖subscript𝛿𝑖𝛾\gamma_{i}\equiv\delta_{i}\gammaitalic_γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≡ italic_δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_γ) as,

ni=gie(α+βϵi){1γ(l=0(l+1)blnilgil)}subscript𝑛𝑖subscript𝑔𝑖superscript𝑒𝛼𝛽subscriptitalic-ϵ𝑖1𝛾superscriptsubscript𝑙0𝑙1subscript𝑏𝑙superscriptsubscript𝑛𝑖𝑙superscriptsubscript𝑔𝑖𝑙n_{i}=g_{i}e^{-(\alpha+\beta\epsilon_{i})}\Bigg{\{}1-\gamma\Bigg{(}\sum_{l=0}^% {\infty}(l+1)b_{l}\frac{n_{i}^{l}}{g_{i}^{l}}\Bigg{)}\Bigg{\}}italic_n start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - ( italic_α + italic_β italic_ϵ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT { 1 - italic_γ ( ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_l + 1 ) italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG italic_n start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_l end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_l end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ) } (15)

The maximum occupancy numbers at each degenerate state will have an upper bound for γ>0𝛾0\gamma>0italic_γ > 0 as,

0l=0(l+1)blncl1γ0superscriptsubscript𝑙0𝑙1subscript𝑏𝑙superscriptsubscript𝑛𝑐𝑙1𝛾0\leq\sum_{l=0}^{\infty}(l+1)b_{l}n_{c}^{l}\leq\frac{1}{\gamma}0 ≤ ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_l + 1 ) italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_l end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_γ end_ARG (16)

Using different values for the coefficients of blsubscript𝑏𝑙b_{l}italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, one can derive different statistical models from Eq 15. Clearly, choice of blsubscript𝑏𝑙b_{l}italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l end_POSTSUBSCRIPT has to be such that bl0subscript𝑏𝑙0b_{l}\to 0italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l end_POSTSUBSCRIPT → 0 as l𝑙l\to\inftyitalic_l → ∞ for γ>0𝛾0\gamma>0italic_γ > 0.

An interesting example is bl=1/(l+1)!subscript𝑏𝑙1𝑙1b_{l}=1/(l+1)!italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 1 / ( italic_l + 1 ) !, which leads to,

ni=gie(α+βϵi){1γe(ni/gi)}subscript𝑛𝑖subscript𝑔𝑖superscript𝑒𝛼𝛽subscriptitalic-ϵ𝑖1𝛾superscript𝑒subscript𝑛𝑖subscript𝑔𝑖n_{i}=g_{i}e^{-(\alpha+\beta\epsilon_{i})}\Bigg{\{}1-\gamma e^{(n_{i}/g_{i})}% \Bigg{\}}italic_n start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - ( italic_α + italic_β italic_ϵ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT { 1 - italic_γ italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_n start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT / italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT } (17)

As for dilute systems exp(ni/gi)(1+ni/gi)similar-tosubscript𝑛𝑖subscript𝑔𝑖1subscript𝑛𝑖subscript𝑔𝑖\exp(n_{i}/g_{i})\sim(1+n_{i}/g_{i})roman_exp ( italic_n start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT / italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ∼ ( 1 + italic_n start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT / italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ), Eq. 17 roughly converges to Eq. 10 with m=1𝑚1m=1italic_m = 1. In this particular case, one can show that, γ(1+ni/gi)<1𝛾1subscript𝑛𝑖subscript𝑔𝑖1\gamma(1+n_{i}/g_{i})<1italic_γ ( 1 + italic_n start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT / italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) < 1 for γ>0𝛾0\gamma>0italic_γ > 0, which leads to, γ<1𝛾1\gamma<1italic_γ < 1.

V Conclusion and Outlook

In this work, I have given clear-cut evidence that the special constraint used in the previous derivation of the CFES statistics is indeed linked to the indistinguishability of the system. Usually, the linear form of Haldane’s theory is used in deriving QFES. The non-linear modification introduced in this letter helps us to understand the relationship between statistical correlation and indistinguishability using the zero-moment theorem. For a self-correlating system, this non-linear statistical correlation theory directly produces CFES statistics. Thus, I have shown that Haldane’s statistical correlation theory lies at the core of CFES statistics.

I have shown that one can derive many intermediate statistical models using appropriate choices for the blsubscript𝑏𝑙b_{l}italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l end_POSTSUBSCRIPT coefficients, which will obey Eq. 16 and produce physically meaningful population distribution. Currently, I am exploring a binary inter-correlating CFES type system, which can produce interesting results. The application of CFES statistics in enhanced sampling methods in molecular dynamics simulations of classical systems is also being investigated.

Acknowledgement

I am thankful to the National Institute of Technology, Tiruchirappalli, for providing the necessary funding for this research and to Prof. Sanjib Senapati for useful discussions.

References