Microcanonical partition function - Dirac delta of operators

Click For Summary
The microcanonical partition function is defined as W = Tr{δ(E - Ĥ)}, where δ represents the Dirac delta function applied to the Hamiltonian operator. This formulation captures the density of states at a fixed energy, effectively counting the number of microstates corresponding to that energy. The discussion highlights the importance of considering degeneracy when evaluating the trace, as the Dirac delta function can be expressed in terms of the eigenstates of the Hamiltonian. A change of variables in the context of the Dirac delta function is also discussed, emphasizing how it relates to the eigenvalues of the Hamiltonian. Overall, the thread clarifies the mathematical treatment of the Dirac delta function in quantum mechanics, particularly in the context of the microcanonical ensemble.
ddd123
Messages
481
Reaction score
55

Homework Statement


Why is it that the microcanonical partition function is ##W = Tr\{\delta(E - \hat{H})\}##? As in, for example, Mattis page 62?
Moreover, what's the meaning of taking the Dirac delta of an operator like ##\hat{H}##?

Homework Equations


The density of states at fixed energy is the microcanonical partition function (using a truth-valued Kronecker delta):

##W(E, V, N) = \sum_{\text{all microstates i at V, N}} \delta_{E_i = E}##

The Dirac delta of an n-dimensional vector ##\vec{x}## (maybe it can be generalized if we see an operator as a matrix?):

##\delta (\vec{x}) = \delta(x_1) ... \delta(x_n)##

The Attempt at a Solution



Maybe going in reverse to make sense of the result, using all microstates ##| i \rangle## (if the ##|i\rangle##'s are normalized we obtain the original W):

##Tr\{\delta(E - \hat{H})\} = \sum_i \langle i | \delta(E - \hat{H})\ | i \rangle = \sum_i \langle i | \delta(E - E_i)\ | i \rangle##

I don't even know if the last step is legitimate because I don't know what this Dirac delta of an operator is. If we see it as a big product of deltas of each matrix entry the action on a ket is lost (besides: in what basis? I suppose it doesn't matter since we take the trace after, but the formal expression even outside of trace shouldn't change meaning with change of basis to be well-defined, so it seems ill-defined this way).

Actually I'm not even sure I did something meaningful since we're interested in a large amount of degenerate states with respect to the Hamiltonian: should its trace be taken to entries with same or different energies? Maybe I should've used the degenerate energy eigenkets ##| n \rangle## instead? But then I don't get the desired result.

Simply put I'm completely confused.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Let's suppose a parameterizes a complete set of energy eingenstates.
$$H \mid a \rangle = \varepsilon(a)\mid a \rangle$$
Then we have $$\delta(E - H)\mid a \rangle = \delta(E - \varepsilon(a))\mid a \rangle$$
You are right we have to think about degeneracy to understand this. Do you know how to do a change of variables when you have a Dirac delta of a function, such as ##\delta(f(x))##? It's going to turn into a sum or integral over all the zeros of the function. Additionally, there will be a factor of ##1/\left| f'(x)\right|## multiplying the new integrand. If ##a_0 ## are the solutions to ##E - \varepsilon(a)=0##
$$\int da g(a) \delta(E - \varepsilon(a)) = \int da g(a) \sum_{a_0} \frac{1}{\left|- \varepsilon'(a_0)\right|} \delta(a - a_0)$$
Let me know if that helps.
 
I found this definition which was what I needed: for a complete basis of eigenkets of A with eigenvalues ##a_i##

##f(A) = \sum_i f(a_i) |a_i\rangle \langle a_i|##

so

##\delta(a - A) = \sum_i \delta(a - a_i) |a_i\rangle \langle a_i|##

which justifies the formula since you can find an orthonormal basis of degenerate eigenkets of the Hamiltonian (there's more than one but you can choose one) with which to take the trace. Thus the sum is actually counting the degeneracy of the chosen eigenvalue E which is the fixed energy.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
5K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K