Shifting integration variable when determing population densities

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the mathematical treatment of a space-time dependent field \( B_a \) that interacts with fermions, particularly focusing on the implications of shifting the integration variable when calculating the number density of fermions. The scope includes theoretical reasoning and mathematical formulation in the context of particle physics.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the reasoning behind shifting the integration variable \( \vec{p} \rightarrow \vec{p} + \vec{B} \) only under the assumption that \( B_a \) is constant.
  • Another participant suggests that if \( B \) is not constant, it may become time-dependent and coupled to fluctuations in \( B \) over time.
  • There is a proposal that the integration measure \( d^3p \) would also need to account for an additional integral over \( d^3B \) if \( B \) varies.
  • A later reply indicates that if \( B \) is not constant, one cannot define set momentum states for the fermions due to their fluctuations in time.
  • One participant acknowledges that having an explicit form for \( B \) could allow for further analysis, but general expressions may limit progress.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the implications of a non-constant \( B \) and whether it affects the integration process. There is no consensus on how to proceed with the calculations under these conditions.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights limitations regarding the assumptions made about the constancy of \( B_a \) and the potential complexities introduced by its variability, which remain unresolved.

"Don't panic!"
Messages
600
Reaction score
8
Hi,

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

[tex]E\sim\sqrt{\left(\vec{p}+\vec{B}\right)-m^{2}}+B_{0}[/tex]

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

[tex]n\sim\int^{+\infty}_{-\infty}\frac{d^{3}p}{\left(2\pi\right)^{3}}\frac{1}{\exp{\left(E/k_{_{B}}T\right)}+1}[/tex]

(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!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
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!
 
What do you think would happen to d3p if B is not constant?
 
Would it be that it becomes time dependent and thus coupled to the fluctuations in B over time?
 
or more explicitly, that you would also introduce an additional integral over [itex]d^{3}B[/itex]?
 
Slow down with the questions and answer my question in post #3
 
Last edited:
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.
 
"Don't panic!" said:
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.

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
 
ok, that's cleared things up a bit. Thanks for your time.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K