Approximation of specific heat, Debye model

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the approximation of specific heat in the context of the Debye model, specifically focusing on the high-temperature behavior of the specific heat formula. The original poster presents a mathematical expression for specific heat and seeks to derive an approximation.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to use a Taylor series expansion for the exponential function to simplify the expression for specific heat. They express confusion regarding the derivation of certain terms in the approximation.
  • Some participants suggest that the original poster needs to include more terms in their series expansions to achieve the desired approximation.
  • Questions arise about the logic of approximating one exponential function while neglecting another in the same expression.

Discussion Status

Participants are actively engaging with the original poster's attempts and providing guidance on how to approach the series expansions. There is a recognition of the need for clarity in the approximations being made, and some productive direction has been offered regarding the inclusion of additional terms in the series.

Contextual Notes

The original poster expresses uncertainty about the assumptions made in their approximations and the implications of neglecting certain terms in the exponential functions involved.

Lindsayyyy
Messages
215
Reaction score
0
Hi everyone

I have trouble with this task

Homework Statement


the specific heat cv is given by
c_v =\frac {N_A k_b \hbar^2}{{\Omega_D}^3 {k_b}^2 T^2} \int \limits_{0}^{\Omega_D} \! \frac {\Omega^4 exp\frac{\hbar \Omega}{k_b T}}{{(exp\frac{\hbar \Omega}{k_b T}-1})^2} \, d\Omega

I shall show that the approximation for high temperatures leads to:


c_v=3 N_A k_b [1-0.05 (\frac{\Theta_D}{T})^2]


Homework Equations



k_b \Theta_D= \hbar \Omega_D

The Attempt at a Solution



I tried to approximate my exponential function with the taylor seris, so I get for the exponential function something like:

exp(x) \approx 1+x whereas x is equal to (h*omega)/(kbT)

I will only have x^2 in my denominator and x^2 in my numerator (because I neglect the h*omega/(kbT) in the numerator because T is very high).

But this only leads me to the Dulong Petit law. I have no idea where the minus as well as the 0.05 should come from.

I also tried to approach the whole fraction via taylor but that didn't work out. Furthermore I tried to approximate via taylor until x^2, didn't work out either.

Can anyone help me out with this?

Thanks for your help in advance
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You need to carry more terms in the expansions. You are trying to evaluate

\frac{x^4e^x}{(e^x-1)^2}

You need to keep the following terms:
e^x=1+x+\frac{x^2}{2}+...
(e^x-1)=x+\frac{x^2}{2}+\frac{x^3}{6}+...
(e^x-1)^2=x^2(1+x+\frac{7x^2}{12}+...)
\frac{x^4}{(e^x-1)^2}=x^2(1-x+\frac{5x^2}{12}+...)
Chet
 
Ok, thank you very much.

I will try that later
 
Well I tried it now, but I have a question.

We act on the asumption x^4/(...)^2 which means we already neglect the exponential function in the numerator. How can it be that I'm allowed to approximate my exponential function in the numerator then get to the expression x^4/(...)^2 and then I approximate the whole term. I don't see any logic behind that. Am I not supposed to approximate both exponential functions if I do it with one?

Thanks for your help
 
Lindsayyyy said:
Well I tried it now, but I have a question.

We act on the asumption x^4/(...)^2 which means we already neglect the exponential function in the numerator. How can it be that I'm allowed to approximate my exponential function in the numerator then get to the expression x^4/(...)^2 and then I approximate the whole term. I don't see any logic behind that. Am I not supposed to approximate both exponential functions if I do it with one?

Thanks for your help

I'm not sure I understand your question. The real point I was trying to emphasize is that you need to get the first three terms in the series exact.

I didn't intend to indicate that you only need one term for the exponential in numerator. I showed the three term series for the exponential in the numerator in my first equation. But I didn't show its product with x^4/(...)^2. I wanted to leave that for you to do. When you carry out this multiplication of the two series, you will find that one of the terms drops out. Once you do the integration, you will see where the 0.05 comes from.

Chet
 
Thanks for your reply.

Yeah, I'm sorry, my english is not the best.

I think I finally understood it now, how you meant it in the first place. I misinterpreted your first reply.
 

Similar threads

Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
11K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
5K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
11K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K