2
$\begingroup$

Im reading "Condensed Matter Field Theory" by Atland and Simons. I have a fairly simple question. They are talking about a 1d chain of $N$ atoms, the Lagrangian for this system is straight forward: $$ L = \sum_{n=1}^{N} (\frac{m}{2}\dot{\phi}_n^2 - \frac{k_s}{2}(\phi_{n+1} - \phi_n)^2) $$ where $\phi_n$ is simply the displacement from equilibrium. He argues that iff $\phi_{n+1}-\phi_n << a \,\,\forall n$, where $a$ is the lattice spacing then: $$ \mathcal{L} = (\frac{m}{2}\dot{\phi}(x,t) - \frac{k_sa}{2}(\partial_x \phi(x,t))^2). $$ I have the following problem:

With this continuum business, one also identifies the integral as usual: $$ \int_0^{L=NA} f(x) dx= \sum_{n=0}^N f(an)a $$ Say, you choose $f(x)=x^2$, where $x$ would be the stretching of the spring like in the Lagrangian. Suppose we choose to integrate between two points $A$ and $B=A+a$ such that in the discrete case $\phi_{A+1}-\phi_{A}=0$ i.e. no stretching, but in the continuum only the endpoints are under no stretching, in between the continuum "continuation" would yield a non zero value of the integral. If this is true, the continuum approximation is adding non existing potential energy to the system. Why is my reasoning wrong or why is it okay to use this approximation.

Tl;dr: I basically need a detailed step by step derivation of going from the discrete Lagrangian of a 1d atomic chain to its continuum Lagrangian density.

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ If I have understood you correctly, then you are considering an integral over the length of a single lattice site? In this case the distance $a$ cannot be considered small compared to the integration range, and so it is not surprising that the continuum approximation fails badly. $\endgroup$ Commented Feb 19, 2020 at 12:25
  • $\begingroup$ Could you explain a bit why you dont find it surprising? $\endgroup$ Commented Feb 19, 2020 at 22:26

1 Answer 1

3
$\begingroup$

I have to admit that I didn't follow your argument and about the $f(x)=x^2$ example (where does such a term exist in the Lagrangian? why $\phi_{A+a}-\phi_A=0$ here?) Specifically, note that we don't integrate over a function like $x^2$ but over the fields at a certain point $x$.

I do hope that I can elucidate the mapping from the lattice to the continuum.

We start with a lattice Lagrangian, as you give in your question

$$ L = \sum_n\left[ \frac{m}{2}\dot{\phi}^2_n-\frac{k_s}{2}\left(\phi_{n+1}-\phi_n\right)^2\right]$$ and now we want to replace everything with fields in the continuum limit. So we first need to define these fields. As sums are going to be replaced by integrals, it is very convenient to add the lattice spacing to the definitions of the fields themselves. So we define $\phi_n = \sqrt{a} \phi(na)$ (from now on $\phi$ followed with an argument in parenthesis is our new continuum-limit field). So we rewrite the Lagrangian as $$ L = \sum_n a \left[\frac{m}{2}\dot{\phi}^2(na)-\frac{k_s}{2}\left(\phi(na+a)-\phi(na)\right)^2 \right]$$ and we can readily transform the sum into an integral, with $dx = a$ $$ L = \int\! dx \left[\frac{m}{2}\dot{\phi}^2(x)-\frac{k_s}{2}\left(\phi(x+a)-\phi(x)\right)^2 \right]$$ now we just need to expand the difference, and keep the leading order (which is ok as long as this difference is indeed small - that is the functions are smooth enough) and we get $$ L = \int\! dx \left[\frac{m}{2}\dot{\phi}^2(x)-\frac{k_sa^2}{2}\left(\partial_x\phi(x)\right)^2 \right]$$ note that from dimensionality perspective, you need $a^2$ and not $a$ there (since $m/t^2$ has the same dimensions as $k_s$).

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ With that change of variable that takes you from the discrete to the continuum, how can one be sure such change of variable ($\phi_n\rightarrow\phi(x)$) still describes the same physical system? In the present case I would say that since it is a free theory, the solution to the discrete case can be obtained and compared with the solutions in the continuum. How would one be sure in general that this change of perspective describes the same physical system? $\endgroup$ Commented Feb 19, 2020 at 16:33
  • $\begingroup$ Also, I see no explicit dependence on $N$ being large, I would naively expect $\phi_n\rightarrow\phi(x)$ to depend in some way on $N$. (I also wonder if there should be a dependence on the atoms being very close together (relative to what?!) so as to "see" them as a more continuum looking chain, but that is more of a childish observation). $\endgroup$ Commented Feb 19, 2020 at 16:38
  • $\begingroup$ You can never be sure of anything, but as long as the lengths scales of phenomena that you are interested in are larger than the lattice constant $a$, then treating the theory in the continuum limit is reasonable. As for $N$, since $L = Na$ and we take $a\to 0$, the corresponding limit is also $N\to \infty$. Many time we would also further take $L\to\infty$, achieving the thermodynamic limit, where we can generalize the system further and ignore finite-size effects. $\endgroup$
    – user245141
    Commented Feb 19, 2020 at 16:45
  • $\begingroup$ Your answer was insightful, thank you. $\endgroup$ Commented Feb 19, 2020 at 19:21

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

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