Fermi-dirac statistics, Griffiths 5.28

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around evaluating integrals related to Fermi-Dirac statistics for identical fermions at absolute zero, specifically equations 5.108 and 5.109 from Griffiths. Participants are exploring the implications of temperature dependence in the integrals and the behavior of the chemical potential at absolute zero.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants are questioning how to handle the temperature dependence in the integrals and the implications of the chemical potential being equal to the Fermi energy at absolute zero. There is discussion about the behavior of the integrand based on whether the energy is above or below the chemical potential.

Discussion Status

Some participants have suggested changing the limits of integration to account for the behavior of the integrand at values exceeding the Fermi energy, indicating a productive exploration of the problem. There is recognition that integrating up to the Fermi wave vector may be necessary for convergence.

Contextual Notes

Participants are navigating the complexities of the integrals while adhering to the constraints of the problem, particularly the implications of absolute zero and the behavior of fermions under these conditions.

Elvex
Messages
11
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Evaluate the integrals (eqns 5.108 and 5.109) for the case of identical fermions at absolute zero.


Homework Equations



5.108
[tex]N=\frac{V}{2\pi^{2}}\int_{0}^{\infty}\frac{k^2}{e^{[(\hbar^{2}k^{2}/2m)-\mu]/kT}+1}dk[/tex]

5.109
[tex]E=\frac{V}{2\pi^2}\frac{\hbar^2}{2m}\int_0^{\infty}\frac{k^4}{e^{[(\hbar^{2}k^{2}/2m)-\mu]/kT}+1}dk[/tex]

The Attempt at a Solution



Ok so at absolute zero, the chemical potential is equal to the fermi energy E_f. I'm not sure how to approach either integral because of the T dependence in the denominator in the argument of the exponential.
Aren't there two cases, one for the energy of the state being above the chemical potential, and another for it being less than.
If the energy is less, then the argument goes to - infinite, and the integral is just of k^2, from 0 to infinite... that doesn't seem right.
If the energy is greater than mu, then the argument goes to positive infinite, and the integrand goes to 0. Fantastic.

There's got to be something going on with the expressions in the argument of hte exponential to give a reasonable integrand for T=0.
I think I'm missing some crucial observation.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Look at equations [5.103] and [5.104].
 
OK, so for the first integral. I have a feeling that I need to change the limits of integration because once I get to k values that exceed the Fermi-Energy, the integrand goes to zero, so setting the upper limit to a specific k value will ensure convergence as well.

Oh ok, this is the probably the same method for the second integral as well.
 
Elvex said:
OK, so for the first integral. I have a feeling that I need to change the limits of integration because once I get to k values that exceed the Fermi-Energy, the integrand goes to zero, so setting the upper limit to a specific k value will ensure convergence as well.

Oh ok, this is the probably the same method for the second integral as well.

Yes, in both cases you must integrate up to [itex]k_F[/itex] only (the k value at the Fermi energy).
 

Similar threads

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