Derivation of Mean Thermal Wavelength

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on deriving the mean thermal wavelength from the Maxwell distribution, where a factor of two discrepancy arises in the calculated value compared to the accepted definition. The explanation highlights that this difference is due to the specific definitions used for the thermal de Broglie wavelength, which are chosen to simplify the equations of state for ideal Bose and Fermi gases. The conversation also touches on the significance of the functions related to these gases and their role in quantum statistical mechanics. A participant expresses frustration with the terminology "mean thermal wavelength," suggesting it should be termed "characteristic thermal wavelength" instead. The thread concludes with a personal success story related to qualifying exams, reinforcing the relevance of the discussed concepts.
GreenPenInc
Messages
9
Reaction score
0
Hi guys,

I'm trying to derive the mean thermal wavelength from the Maxwell distribution:

M(v) = 4\pi\left(\frac{m}{2\pi k_BT}\right)^{3/2}v^2e^{-\frac{mv^2}{2k_BT}} = 4\pi\left(\frac{a}{\pi}\right)^{3/2}v^2e^{-av^2}

With a = \frac{m}{2k_BT} introduced for convenience. Since \lambda = \frac{h}{mv}, I figured an expression for the thermal wavelength would be

\lambda_T = \frac{h}{m}\int_0^\infty\frac{M(v)}{v}dv

Problem is, when I do this, I end up with

\lambda_T = 2\sqrt{\frac{h^2}{2\pi m k_BT}}

This is exactly twice the accepted value. Where did I go wrong?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi GreenPenInc,

Don't worry too much about the factor of two in your answer. The calculation you have made is perfectly reasonable and physical; as it must, it reproduces the standard definition up to a factor of order one. The reason why you don't get the standard definition is that the thermal de Broglie wavelength is defined in a slightly different fashion. In fact, the factors of pi and such are chosen so that the equation of state for the ideal Bose gas (and the ideal Fermi gas) takes a particularly simple form. When you put all the factors in you find that the pressure of an ideal Bose gas is given by
<br /> \frac{P}{k T} = \frac{g}{\lambda_T^3} g_{5/2}(z),<br />
while for a Fermi gas the result is
<br /> \frac{P}{k T} = \frac{f}{\lambda_T^3} f_{5/2}(z).<br />
The meaning of the symbols on the left you certainly know; the factor g is called the degeneracy, and it usually measures something like the number of spin components or polarization states, etc. The variable z = e^{\beta \mu} is called the fugacity, and it depends in a simple way on the chemical potential \mu. The functions g_n and f_n are called Bose and Fermi functions, respectively. They are certain special functions that appear again and again in the theory of ideal quantum gases. For example, the definition of g_n(z) is g_n(z) = \frac{1}{\Gamma(n)} \int^\infty_0 \frac{x^{n-1}}{z^{-1} e^x - 1} dx. If you haven't already, you will meet these functions in a course on quantum statistical mechanics.

So, to bring this long winded answer to a close, the thermal de Broglie wavelength is defined so that the equation of state looks nice and neat. Of course, the physics doesn't care about factors of 2 and pi, so your choice would work just as well. Hope this helps.
 
Last edited:
Physics Monkey said:
Hi GreenPenInc,

Don't worry too much about the factor of two in your answer. The calculation you have made is perfectly reasonable and physical; as it must, it reproduces the standard definition up to a factor of order one. The reason why you don't get the standard definition is that the thermal de Broglie wavelength is defined in a slightly different fashion. In fact, the factors of pi and such are chosen so that the equation of state for the ideal Bose gas (and the ideal Fermi gas) takes a particularly simple form. When you put all the factors in you find that the pressure of an ideal Bose gas is given by
<br /> \frac{P}{k T} = \frac{g}{\lambda_T^3} g_{5/2}(z),<br />
while for a Fermi gas the result is
<br /> \frac{P}{k T} = \frac{f}{\lambda_T^3} g_{5/2}(z).<br />
The meaning of the symbols on the left you certainly know; the factor g is called the degeneracy, and it usually measures something like the number of spin components or polarization states, etc. The variable z = e^{\beta \mu} is called the fugacity, and it depends in a simple way on the chemical potential \mu. The functions g_n and f_n are called Bose and Fermi functions, respectively. They are certain special functions that appear again and again in the theory of ideal quantum gases. For example, the definition of g_n(z) is g_n(z) = \frac{1}{\Gamma(n)} \int^\infty_0 \frac{x^{n-1}}{z^{-1} e^x - 1} dx. If you haven't already, you will meet these functions in a course on quantum statistical mechanics.

So, to bring this long winded answer to a close, the thermal de Broglie wavelength is defined so that the equation of state looks nice and neat. Of course, the physics doesn't care about factors of 2 and pi, so your choice would work just as well. Hope this helps.


This was essentially the answer which a prof I know gave when several of us asked him today, minus the reason for it taking the specific form it takes (he didn't know off the top of his head). That is very enlightening. I remember those f and g functions, although I learned them in a slightly generalized form h_\nu(z; a), where the parameter a could be adjusted to deal with bosons, fermions, or the fictitious "boltzons" (classical limit).

I'm studying for the quals right now, which is how this came up in the first place, and this is all starting to come back to me.

Now that I know the rationale, it annoys me to see it referred to as the "mean thermal wavelength" in so many textbooks; I think it would be better to call it something like the "characteristic thermal wavelength".

Thanks again!
 
Glad to hear I could help, and good luck with your quals!

P.S. Welcome to the forums.
 
Physics Monkey said:
Glad to hear I could help, and good luck with your quals!

P.S. Welcome to the forums.

Almost forgot about this thread. Turns out I passed my quals with flying colours, although almost 2/3 of the people failed the second day (modern physics). All that studying paid off. :)
 
Thread 'Help with Time-Independent Perturbation Theory "Good" States Proof'
(Disclaimer: this is not a HW question. I am self-studying, and this felt like the type of question I've seen in this forum. If there is somewhere better for me to share this doubt, please let me know and I'll transfer it right away.) I am currently reviewing Chapter 7 of Introduction to QM by Griffiths. I have been stuck for an hour or so trying to understand the last paragraph of this proof (pls check the attached file). It claims that we can express Ψ_{γ}(0) as a linear combination of...
Back
Top