Counting the states of a free particle (Periodic boundary conditions)

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the calculation of the density of states for a free particle under periodic boundary conditions (PBC). Participants explore the implications of choosing PBC, the necessity of boundary conditions for a free particle, and the justification for treating wavevector k as continuous in the context of integration limits.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the physical meaning of applying PBC to a free particle's wavefunction and why boundary conditions are necessary when there are no physical boundaries.
  • Another participant suggests that PBC might be a mathematical trick that yields correct results and inquires about more natural methods for obtaining the density of states.
  • Concerns are raised about the treatment of k as a continuous variable when integrating from -Infinity to +Infinity, particularly when the quantization leads to large values of n comparable to L.
  • One participant argues that the reason k can be treated as continuous is due to the smallness of Δk = 2π/L, which remains small uniformly for all k when L is large, rather than the absolute size of k.
  • Another participant expresses gratitude for the clarification regarding the treatment of k as continuous.
  • Several participants request assistance on the initial questions posed, indicating a need for further clarification and discussion.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the necessity and implications of PBC, as well as the treatment of k in the integration process. The discussion remains unresolved, with multiple competing perspectives present.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the dependence on the choice of boundary conditions and the assumptions regarding the behavior of k at infinity. The discussion does not resolve the appropriateness of using PBC or the implications of treating k as continuous.

JK423
Gold Member
Messages
394
Reaction score
7
Say you have a free particle, non relativistic, and you want to calculate the density of states (number of states with energy E-E+dE).
In doing that, textbooks apply periodic boundary conditions (PBC) in a box of length L, and they get L to infinity, and in this way the states become countable.
I have some questions and i'd really like your help. Thank you in advance!

1) Can someone explain to me what is the physical meaning of choosing PBC for the particle's wavefunction?

2)Why to choose boundary conditions at all for the free particle, since there are no boundaries..?

3) If PBC is just a mathematical trick that just gives the correct result, is there another more natural way of obtaining the density of states?

4) If we apply PBC, then the wavevector is quantized: k=2πn/L, where n=integer. When we take continuous limit L-->Infinity we get Δk-->dk because L is at the denominator and we can consider k to be a continuous variable. The problem is that when we make the integration, k's limits go from -Infinity to +Infinity and at these limits the approximation of treating k as a continuous variable is false, since 'n' is comparable in magnitude with L. Which means that at the limits (infinity) for large n, the integral should be replaced by sum.
So, how do we justify this? How can we prove that the error of keeping the integral all the way to infinity is negligible?
One idea that comes to my mind is the fact that the density of states is usually integrated with someother function f(k) which falls of rapidly when k-->Infinity, so the contribution of very large k is negligible. You think that this is correct?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The problem is that when we make the integration, k's limits go from -Infinity to +Infinity and at these limits the approximation of treating k as a continuous variable is false, since 'n' is comparable in magnitude with L. Which means that at the limits (infinity) for large n, the integral should be replaced by sum.
No, the reason we can treat k as a continuous variable is that Δk = 2π/L, the distance between two neighboring values of k, is small, uniformly for all k. This is true whenever L is large. It's not the size of k that counts, it's the size of Δk.
 
Bill_K said:
No, the reason we can treat k as a continuous variable is that Δk = 2π/L, the distance between two neighboring values of k, is small, uniformly for all k. This is true whenever L is large. It's not the size of k that counts, it's the size of Δk.
Indeed.. Thanks!
 
Any help on the first 3 questions?
 
Is there anyone that can help please?
(I repost in order to update the thread..)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
5K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
6K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K