Graduate References: continuum approximation of discrete sums?

Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on the accuracy of continuum approximations to discrete sums, particularly in quantum optics. Participants share references, including links to articles that explore the transition from summation to integration and the Euler-Maclaurin formula. There is a desire for a less abstract mathematical analysis of the error in these approximations, especially in relation to physical models and experimental results. The conversation also touches on the complexities of mathematical concepts like zeta and Bernoulli functions. Overall, the thread seeks to deepen understanding of the continuum approximation's implications in various contexts.
yucheng
Messages
232
Reaction score
57
Is there more references for how accurate is the continuum approximation to discrete sums? Perhaps more mathematical.

What I've found:
https://lonitch.github.io/Sum-to-Int/
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2102.10941.pdf

Some examples are:
Sum to integral
$$\sum_{\mathbf{k}} \to 2 \left ( \frac{L}{2 \pi} \right ) \int d^3k$$

Density of oscillator modes etc
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Here is Terry Tao discussing the Euler-Maclaurin formula mentioned in your arxiv link: link.

EDIT: Also, is there a reason you posted this in the Quantum subforum?
 
Haborix said:
EDIT: Also, is there a reason you posted this in the Quantum subforum?
Thanks!

Yes it appears in many places in Quantum optics, so I was hoping that there is a less mathematically abstract analysis, especially that of the error in the approximation (for instance, applying it to a model physical system, comparing the exact sum vs continuum approximation), whether it causes deviations from experimental results.....

P.S. the zeta functions, bernoulli functions makes me want to cry, but if that's what's needed, then I'll have to slowly crawl my way there...
 
I did find one! Serendipity!

Fermi's golden rule: its derivation and breakdown by an ideal model by J. M. Zhang, Y. Liu

Search in document:
in replacing the summation by an integral, the sampling step-length
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1604.06916.pdf
 
Time reversal invariant Hamiltonians must satisfy ##[H,\Theta]=0## where ##\Theta## is time reversal operator. However, in some texts (for example see Many-body Quantum Theory in Condensed Matter Physics an introduction, HENRIK BRUUS and KARSTEN FLENSBERG, Corrected version: 14 January 2016, section 7.1.4) the time reversal invariant condition is introduced as ##H=H^*##. How these two conditions are identical?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
7K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K