I Solving Fermi-Dirac Integral: Step-by-Step Guide

arneet
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
i am completely lost. there is an integral in my textbook in fermi dirac statistics whose result is written directly and am not able to understand . it is
∫⌽(u) du /exp.((u-uf)/kt) + 1 from 0 to ∞
expanded by tayor's series to give

∫⌽(u) du (from 0 to uf) +∏²/6 (kT)² [⌽'(u)] |at u=uf + 7∏⁴/360 (kT)⁴ [⌽''(u)] |at u=uf +...

where uf is such that function of u is zero for u greater than uf.
please reply as soon as possible. thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It's very hard to read the formulae. Please use LaTeX.
 
hope this could help
 

Attachments

please reply. the answer on expansion by taylor series should be
 

Attachments

I read Hanbury Brown and Twiss's experiment is using one beam but split into two to test their correlation. It said the traditional correlation test were using two beams........ This confused me, sorry. All the correlation tests I learnt such as Stern-Gerlash are using one beam? (Sorry if I am wrong) I was also told traditional interferometers are concerning about amplitude but Hanbury Brown and Twiss were concerning about intensity? Isn't the square of amplitude is the intensity? Please...
I am not sure if this belongs in the biology section, but it appears more of a quantum physics question. Mike Wiest, Associate Professor of Neuroscience at Wellesley College in the US. In 2024 he published the results of an experiment on anaesthesia which purported to point to a role of quantum processes in consciousness; here is a popular exposition: https://neurosciencenews.com/quantum-process-consciousness-27624/ As my expertise in neuroscience doesn't reach up to an ant's ear...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
Back
Top