Fermi Dirac- missing something from Ashcroft derivation

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the derivation of the Fermi-Dirac function, specifically addressing a step in Ashcroft's derivation that participants find unclear. The original poster indicates confusion regarding the transition from equation 2.43 to 2.44.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore substitutions and manipulations of equations to clarify the derivation steps. The original poster attempts to substitute values but feels they are missing an important point. Others suggest specific substitutions and factorizations to aid understanding.

Discussion Status

Some participants have provided insights that appear to clarify the original poster's confusion. However, the discussion remains open as participants continue to explore the derivation and share additional information.

Contextual Notes

There is mention of using LaTeX for formatting equations, indicating a focus on clear mathematical presentation within the discussion.

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
[tex] 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}[/tex]
then factor out part
[tex] =e^{-(E_\alpha^{N+1}-F_{N+1})/T}e^{(\epsilon_i-[F_{N+1}-F_{N}])/T}[/tex]
and use the definition of P (Eq.2.40) again
[tex] =P_{N+1}(E_{\alpha}^{N+1})e^{(\epsilon_i-[F_{N+1}-F_{N}])/T}[/tex]
and the definition of \mu
[tex] =P_{N+1}(E_{\alpha}^{N+1})e^{(\epsilon_i-[\mu])/T}[/tex]
 
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
[tex] \frac{1}{c}\frac{\partial \vec E}{\partial t}[/tex]
 

Similar threads

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