Calculating Ʃn(E) with Boson States

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter aaaa202
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Sum
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the approximation of the sum of particles in each energy state for a gas of bosons, specifically focusing on the transition from a discrete sum to an integral using the concept of density of states. Participants explore the mathematical justification for this approximation and the conditions under which it holds.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions how the Riemann integral approximates the sum of particles in energy states, expressing confusion about the relationship between the sum and the integral.
  • Another participant clarifies that if \(\rho(E)\) represents the density of states, the integral can reduce to the sum, indicating that this is an exact relationship under certain definitions.
  • A different participant notes that their book describes the density of states as proportional to \(\sqrt{E}\) and seeks to understand how the Riemann integral fits into the approximation of the sum.
  • One participant explains that the sum over energy states can be approximated as an integral by treating the index as continuous and changing variables to incorporate the density of states.
  • Another participant expresses concern about the initial approximation and inquires about the requirements for the function to ensure the approximation from sum to integral is valid, suggesting that slowly varying functions may yield better approximations.
  • Further discussion references the Euler-Maclaurin summation and its conditions for the approximation to hold, mentioning the need for the summed function to be smooth and analytic.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express varying levels of understanding and agreement on the mathematical principles involved, with some clarifying definitions and others questioning the conditions for the approximation. No consensus is reached regarding the specific requirements for the approximation to be valid.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the importance of the density of states and the nature of the functions involved in the approximation, indicating that the discussion is contingent on specific mathematical definitions and assumptions.

aaaa202
Messages
1,144
Reaction score
2
My book wants to sum the number of particles in each energy states for a gas of bosons, that it calculate the infinity sum:

Ʃn(E)

now if the E's are narrowly spaced it says we can approximate this with an integral.

∫n(E)ρ(E)dE

Now can anyone tell me using the definition of the Riemann-integral, how this integral approximates the sum? - because it doesn't really make sense to me.
I have had a similar question about the approximation of the partition function over space, but I think this is a bit different.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
What is \rho(E)? Is that the density of states?

The density of states is defined as
g(E) = \sum_i \delta(E-E_i)
(I use g in case it is different from what your \rho is.)

If your \rho(E) is the density of states, then you can see that the integral would just reduce to the sum. This in itself is not an approximation; it is exact, however one can use approximations to compute the density of states (such as giving the delta function a finite width).
 
I think my book means the density of states yes. But my book doesn't use delta functions, rather something like √(E) (depends on the physical circumstances but for Bose states it is apparently proportional to the square root of E).

I just don't see how using the Riemann integral:

limΔx→0Ʃf(nx)Δx you can approximate a sum Ʃf(x) with an integral which contains a density. I believe you showed me some months ago that:

Ʃf(nx) ≈1/Δx ∫f(x) dx, which I understood but I don't see how a density fits into all this.
 
The idea is that you would have a sum over energy states indexed by some discrete label, say ##i##. Your sum is then

$$S = \sum_{i=0}^{N} n(E_i),$$
where ##E_i## is the energy of the ith state and ##N## is the maximum number of states (could be infinite). Now, for a large number of finely spaced energy states, we can approximate this sum as an integral over ##i##, which we now treat as though it were continuous:

$$S = \sum_{i=0}^{N} n(E_i) \approx \int_0^N di~n(E(i));$$
however, the energy is really the more natural variable to do the integral in, so we would have to change variables, with ##di = \frac{di}{dE}dE##. We identify ##di/dE## as the density of states ##g(E)##. Thus,

$$S \approx \int_{E_0}^{E_N} dE~\frac{di}{dE} n(E) = \int_{E_0}^{E_N} dE~g(E) n(E).$$

(You may wonder how we justify approximately the sum over i as an integral even though the i's are evenly spaced. See this Wikipedia article on Euler-Maclaurin summation, which shows that sums can be approximated as integrals (plus higher order correction terms).
 
Okay what troubled me is the first approximation. But it simply is true for many wellbehaved functions that the sum is well approximated by the integral even though the i's have a finite space of 1 between them.
What requirements is there for f for the approximation to work well? I could imagine that if it was slowly varying it would be good since the approximation if perfect for a constant curve.
 
aaaa202 said:
Okay what troubled me is the first approximation. But it simply is true for many wellbehaved functions that the sum is well approximated by the integral even though the i's have a finite space of 1 between them.
What requirements is there for f for the approximation to work well? I could imagine that if it was slowly varying it would be good since the approximation if perfect for a constant curve.

The wikipedia article on Euler-Maclaurin series specifies that the summed function, let's call it f(x), must be "a smooth (meaning: sufficiently often differentiable), analytic function of exponential type ##< 2\pi## defined for all real numbers x in the interval" which the sum covers. This means you have to be able to smoothly extend the summand to continuous values.

The article gives a second sum which it terms as an asymptotic series. I'm not sure if the above requirements need to strictly hold for the asymptotic series. I suspect the book on asymptotic methods by Bender and Orszag would comment on it.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K