Fermi Dirac- missing something from Ashcroft derivation

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on deriving the Fermi-Dirac function, specifically addressing the transition from equation 2.43 to 2.44 in Ashcroft's derivation. The key equations involved include P_{N}(E) = exp(-(E-F_{N})/kT) and the substitution leading to P_{N}(E_{alpha}^{N+1}-E_{i}) = exp((E_{i}-u)/kT)P_{N+1}(E_{alpha}^{N+1}), where u = F_{N+1} - F_{N}. The user successfully clarifies the derivation process by substituting and factoring terms, ultimately leading to a clearer understanding of the relationship between the electron states and the Fermi levels.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Fermi-Dirac statistics
  • Familiarity with Ashcroft's "Solid State Physics"
  • Knowledge of LaTeX for typesetting mathematical equations
  • Basic concepts of statistical mechanics
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation of the Fermi-Dirac distribution in detail
  • Learn about the implications of Fermi levels in solid-state physics
  • Explore LaTeX tutorials for effective mathematical typesetting
  • Investigate the role of temperature in Fermi-Dirac statistics
USEFUL FOR

Students and researchers in condensed matter physics, particularly those studying statistical mechanics and the properties of electrons in solids.

Benindelft
Messages
12
Reaction score
0
[SOLVED] Fermi Dirac- missing something from Ashcroft derivation

Homework Statement



Deriving Fermi Dirac function
following ashcroft all good up to equation 2.43 but then it does the folowing at 2.44
and I can't see how you reach 2.44.

Homework Equations


as

(2.43) f_{i}^{N}= 1- sum(P_{N}(E_{alpha}^{N+1}-E_{i}) which is 'summation over all (N+1) electron states alpha in which there is an electron in the one electron level i)
Then because
P_{N} (E)= exp(-(E-F_{N})/kT)

We may write
(2.44) P_{N}(E_{alpha}^{N+1}- E_{i})=exp((E_{i}-u)/kt)P_{N+1}(E_{alpha}^{N+1})

as u=F_{N+1}-F_{N}

The Attempt at a Solution



I tried just subbing in but I am missing some important point and end up with rubbish...
 
Physics news on Phys.org
they substitute in Eq. 2.40 and then add 0=F_{N+1}-F_{N+1} in the exponent
<br /> P_N(E_\alpha^{N+1}-\epsilon_i)=e^{-(E_\alpha^{N+1}-\epsilon_i-F_N)/T}<br /> =e^{-(E_\alpha^{N+1}-\epsilon_i-F_N+F_{N+1}-F_{N+1})/T}<br />
then factor out part
<br /> =e^{-(E_\alpha^{N+1}-F_{N+1})/T}e^{(\epsilon_i-[F_{N+1}-F_{N}])/T}<br />
and use the definition of P (Eq.2.40) again
<br /> =P_{N+1}(E_{\alpha}^{N+1})e^{(\epsilon_i-[F_{N+1}-F_{N}])/T}<br />
and the definition of \mu
<br /> =P_{N+1}(E_{\alpha}^{N+1})e^{(\epsilon_i-[\mu])/T}<br />
 
Thanks! that looks pretty clear to me now.

BTW how do you get the equations to looks so nice? Is that info some where on this website?
 
Benindelft said:
Thanks! that looks pretty clear to me now.

BTW how do you get the equations to looks so nice? Is that info some where on this website?

I'm using LaTeX commands. LaTeX is a typesetting program that's really good for math. just google "LaTeX tutorial" or something and you will find a lot of information. To use LaTeX on physics forums you have to enclose the commands in between tags... put your mouse over the following equation and then
click on it to see the code (enclosed in tex and /tex tags...in square brackets) which created it
<br /> \frac{1}{c}\frac{\partial \vec E}{\partial t}<br />
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
4K