How to deal with index in the problem of thermal field?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter KFC
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Field Index Thermal
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the calculation of average energy in the context of harmonic oscillators, particularly focusing on the transition from single-mode to multimode systems. Participants explore the implications of using partition functions and the complexities introduced by multiple indices in the calculations.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant describes the average energy for a single mode harmonic oscillator using the density operator and expresses confusion about extending this to multimode systems.
  • Another participant suggests that using the partition function simplifies the calculation of average energy and proposes a formula involving derivatives of the partition function.
  • There is a query about how to consolidate multiple indices into a single index for calculations involving multimode systems.
  • Participants debate the correct formulation of the partition function, with one proposing two different expressions and another asserting that neither is correct due to the presence of occupation numbers.
  • A later reply provides a detailed breakdown of the correct partition function, emphasizing the summation over occupation numbers and the exponential form.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the correct formulation of the partition function and the handling of indices in calculations. No consensus is reached regarding the best approach to simplify the expressions.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the complexity introduced by multiple indices and the dependence on the definitions of the partition function and Hamiltonian. There are unresolved questions about the correct expressions and the implications of using different formulations.

KFC
Messages
477
Reaction score
4
In the problem of harmonic oscillator, for single mode, that is, the energy

[tex]H = \hbar\omega(n + 1/2)[/tex]

It is easy to find the average of energy by considering the density operator

[tex]<H> = \frac{Tr(He^{\beta H})}{Tr(e^{\beta H})}[/tex]

But for multimode (assume no polarization), we have to consider all modes specified with [tex]k[/tex]

[tex]H = \sum_k \hbar\omega_k(n_k + 1/2)[/tex]

So the average energy would be

[tex]<H> = \prod_k\frac{Tr(He^{\beta H})}{Tr(e^{\beta H})}<br /> = \prod_k\frac{\sum_{k_1} \hbar\omega_{k_1}(n_{k_1} + 1/2) \exp[\beta\sum_{k_2}\hbar\omega_{k_2}(n_{k_2}+1/2)] }{\exp[\beta\sum_{k_3}\hbar\omega_{k_3}(n_{k_3}+1/2)]}[/tex]

Since each sum and prod should have independent index so I use k, k1, k2, k3. I am very confusing how to deal with the index to get the simplifed expression.

In some textbook, it first let the partition function be
[tex]Z=Tr(e^{\beta H})[/tex]

so the energy average be

[tex] <H> = -\frac{\partial \ln Z}{\partial \beta} = \sum_{k}\dfrac{\hbar\omega_{k}}{\exp\{\beta\hbar\omega_{k}\}-1}[/tex]

My question is how to deal with index if I don't use the partion function.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
KFC said:
In the problem of harmonic oscillator, for single mode, that is, the energy

[tex]H = \hbar\omega(n + 1/2)[/tex]

It is easy to find the average of energy by considering the density operator

[tex]<H> = \frac{Tr(He^{\beta H})}{Tr(e^{\beta H})}[/tex]

But for multimode (assume no polarization), we have to consider all modes specified with [tex]k[/tex]

[tex]H = \sum_k \hbar\omega_k(n_k + 1/2)[/tex]

So the average energy would be

[tex]<H> = \prod_k\frac{Tr(He^{\beta H})}{Tr(e^{\beta H})}<br /> = \prod_k\frac{\sum_{k_1} \hbar\omega_{k_1}(n_{k_1} + 1/2) \exp[\beta\sum_{k_2}\hbar\omega_{k_2}(n_{k_2}+1/2)] }{\exp[\beta\sum_{k_3}\hbar\omega_{k_3}(n_{k_3}+1/2)]}[/tex]

Since each sum and prod should have independent index so I use k, k1, k2, k3. I am very confusing how to deal with the index to get the simplifed expression.

In some textbook, it first let the partition function be
[tex]Z=Tr(e^{\beta H})[/tex]

so the energy average be

[tex] <H> = -\frac{\partial \ln Z}{\partial \beta} = \sum_{k}\dfrac{\hbar\omega_{k}}{\exp\{\beta\hbar\omega_{k}\}-1}[/tex]

My question is how to deal with index if I don't use the partion function.

same way as with the partition function. it's just easier to calculate the partition function and take a derivative.
 
olgranpappy said:
same way as with the partition function. it's just easier to calculate the partition function and take a derivative.

But there is three different index, how can I make it into one index?
 
Well, I found one problem. For single mode, which way is the correct one to write the partition function?

[tex]Z= \prod_k\exp[\beta\sum_{k}\hbar\omega_{k}(n_{k}+1/2)][/tex]

or

[tex]Z= \prod_k\exp[\beta\hbar\omega_{k}(n_{k}+1/2)][/tex]

?

And what about the hamiltonian in the numerator?
 
KFC said:
Well, I found one problem. For single mode, which way is the correct one to write the partition function?

[tex]Z= \prod_k\exp[\beta\sum_{k}\hbar\omega_{k}(n_{k}+1/2)][/tex]

or

[tex]Z= \prod_k\exp[\beta\hbar\omega_{k}(n_{k}+1/2)][/tex]

?

And what about the hamiltonian in the numerator?

Neither is the correct expression for the partition function. This is apparent since the occupation numbers still appear on the LHS...

But, before going on, note that
[tex] \prod_j e^{f_j}<br /> =e^{f_1}e^{f_2}\ldots e^{f_N}\ldots=e^{f_1+f_2+\ldots}<br /> =e^{\sum_j f_j}\;.[/tex]

The correct partition function is
[tex] \sum_{n_1}\sum_{n_2}\ldots\sum_{n_N}\ldots<br /> e^{-\beta(\sum_k(n_k+1/2)\hbar\omega_k)}<br /> =\sum_{n_1}\sum_{n_2}\ldots\sum_{n_N}\ldots<br /> e^{-\beta((n_1+1/2)\hbar\omega_k)}<br /> e^{-\beta((n_2+1/2)\hbar\omega_k)}\ldots<br /> =<br /> \sum_{n_1}e^{-\beta((n_1+1/2)\hbar\omega_k)}\sum_{n_2}e^{-\beta((n_2+1/2)\hbar\omega_k)}\ldots[/tex]
and this equals
[tex] \prod_k \sum_{n_k}e^{-\beta(n_k+1/2)\hbar\omega_k}\;,[/tex]
where the sum, for bosons, runs from 0 to infinity.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K