1. Limited time only! Sign up for a free 30min personal tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Shifting integration variable when determing population densities

  1. Mar 26, 2014 #1

    I'm hoping someone can enlighten me on this as I'm a little bit fuzzy on the reasoning:

    Say I have a space-time dependent field [itex]B_{a}[/itex] that interacts with fermions such that it affects their energy dispersion. It appears in the energies in the form


    Why is it, that when I then calculate the number density of fermions in such a scenario, i.e.


    (where in this case the chemical potential is negligible) that I can only shift the integration variable, such that [itex]\vec{p}\rightarrow \vec{p}+\vec{B}[/itex] (thus "absorbing" the 3-vector components of [itex]B_{a}[/itex]), if I consider [itex]B_{a}[/itex] to be constant?

    Thanks in advance!
  2. jcsd
  3. Mar 26, 2014 #2
    Apologies for the spelling mistake in the title of the thread by the way, should be "determining" , but don't know how to retroactively edit it!
  4. Mar 26, 2014 #3
    What do you think would happen to d3p if B is not constant?
  5. Mar 26, 2014 #4
    Would it be that it becomes time dependent and thus coupled to the fluctuations in B over time?
  6. Mar 26, 2014 #5
    or more explicitly, that you would also introduce an additional integral over [itex]d^{3}B[/itex]?
  7. Mar 26, 2014 #6
    Slow down with the questions and answer my question in post #3
    Last edited: Mar 26, 2014
  8. Mar 26, 2014 #7
    sorry, they were my attempts at a possible answer (shouldn't have included the question marks)!

    I assume that you would have [itex]d^{3}p\rightarrow d^{3}\left(p+B\right)=d^{3}p'[/itex] and so, as B is not constant, one could not talk of set momentum states for the fermions as they would fluctuate in time depending on the fluctuations in B.
  9. Mar 26, 2014 #8
    Correct. If you have a explicit form for B then you might attempt a solution. You can't go much further with the general expression, I don't think
  10. Mar 26, 2014 #9
    ok, that's cleared things up a bit. Thanks for your time.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook