Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

In "Solid State Physics" by said authors, Eq. 17.46 is $$ \rho^{ind}(\textbf{r}) = - e[n_0(\mu + e\phi(\textbf{r})) - n_0(\mu)]$$ and then the authors write

In the present case we assume that $\phi$ is small enough for Eq. 17.46 to be expanded to give in leading order

$$\rho^{ind}(\textbf{r}) = -e^2 \frac{\partial n_0}{\partial \mu} \phi(\textbf{r}) \hspace{1cm} \mbox{[Eq. 17.47]}$$

I wonder how to formally exact write this expansion. To understand this, I would like to know

  1. What is the independent variable in Eq. 17.46? Is it $\phi$, $\mu$ or $(e\phi + \mu)$?

  2. Does it make sense to write it as $$\rho^{ind}(\textbf{r}) = -e \left[ n_0(\mu) + \left . e\phi(\textbf{r})\frac{\partial n_0(e\phi+\mu)}{\partial \mu}\right|_{e\phi=0} - n_0(\mu) \right]$$ But then, if I set $e\phi = 0$, would the middle term not collapse to zero?

share|cite|improve this question
up vote 2 down vote accepted

Your quotation of the equation is actually wrong. The correct version is given by


Now you have to expand this expression around $\phi=0$

$\rho^{ind}(r)=\rho^{ind}(r)\mid_{\phi=0}+\frac{\partial}{\partial \phi}\rho^{ind}\mid_{\phi=0}\phi+\ldots$

Now we have to evaluate the zero and first order terms:


$\frac{\partial}{\partial \phi}\rho^{ind}\mid_{\phi=0}\phi(r)=-e\frac{\partial n_0}{\partial(\mu+e\phi(r))}\frac{\partial}{\partial\phi}(\mu+e\phi(r))\mid_{\phi=0}\phi=-e^2\frac{\partial n_0}{\partial\mu}\phi(r).$

As you can see, the last line yields the desired expression by application of the chain rule.

share|cite|improve this answer
I apologize for accidentally omitting $e$ from Eq. 17.46. It is corrected now. – TMOTTM Feb 18 '13 at 7:14
Would you then agree to the statement that $$n(\mu) = n_0(e\phi({\bf r}) + \mu)$$ – TMOTTM Feb 18 '13 at 8:18
According to eq. 17.44 and eq. 17.45, this is true. – Frederic Brünner Feb 18 '13 at 10:05

Let's answer both questions at once. You're interested in the behaviour of the function $n_0(\mu + e\phi)$ as you vary $\phi$, especially in the limit $e \phi \rightarrow 0.$ This suggests that you expand $n_0(\mu + e\phi)$ around $e\phi = 0$:

$$n_0(\mu + e\phi) = n_0(\mu) + e\phi \, \frac{\partial n_0(\mu)}{\partial \mu} + \mathcal{O}\left[(e\phi)^2\right].$$ (This is precisely your second equation, which is perfectly fine.)

Indeed if you brutally set $e\phi \rightarrow 0$, you'll end up with zero; that's why you keep the leading term in $e\phi.$

If it's still confusing, go back to the usual Taylor expansion of $f(x+a)$ at small $a$: $f(x+a) \simeq f(x) + a f'(x) + \ldots,$ so $$f(x+a) - f(x) \simeq a f'(x) + \mathcal{O}(a^2).$$

share|cite|improve this answer
This answer is not quite correct, due to the fact that the equation in the question was not quite correct. – Frederic Brünner Feb 17 '13 at 21:09
Thanks Vibert, though I was exactly asking for how to arrive at the expansion. – TMOTTM Feb 18 '13 at 7:20

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.