4
$\begingroup$

Lets say you are given a distribution function $f(p)$ and you want to define a temperature, $T_f$, for this distribution. (I assume $\mu = 0$.)

It is then natural to define a temperature the following way: \begin{equation} T_f \equiv \frac{ \int d^3p \ G(p) f(p)}{\int d^3p \ f(p)}, \end{equation} where $G(p)$ is defined by the following equation \begin{equation} T = \frac{ \int d^3p \ G(p) f_{eq}(p,T)}{\int d^3p \ f_{eq}(p,T)}, \end{equation} where $f_{eq}(p,T)$ is the equilibrium thermal distribution function.

I know that if $f_{eq}$ is given by the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution, then $$G_{MB}(p) = \frac{p^2}{3E},$$ where $E = \sqrt{p^2 + m^2}$.

What I need is to find an expression for $G(p)$ if $f_{eq}$ is the Bose-Einstein or Fermi-Dirac distribution $$ f_{eq} = \frac{1}{e^{E(p)/T} \pm 1}.$$

I do not need an analytic expression for $G(p)$, an integral that I can solve numerically is sufficient. It seems to me that this should be possible to do, but I just can't think of how.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ why does it make sense to ask for a temperature if the system is not in a equilibrium? $\endgroup$ – tonydo May 9 '16 at 10:57
  • $\begingroup$ Well, it would not exactly be the temperature, per se, but it would be a property of the gas that is similar to temperature. Often, we have close to but not exactly an equilibrium distribution, and then it is helpful to fint the "temperature". $\endgroup$ – Ihle May 9 '16 at 11:19
  • $\begingroup$ Is $E(p)$ in the definition of $f_{eq}$ relativistic, or simply $p^2/2m$? $\endgroup$ – tonydo May 9 '16 at 15:04
  • $\begingroup$ $E(p) = \sqrt{p^2 +m^2}$. $\endgroup$ – Ihle May 9 '16 at 15:41
4
+50
$\begingroup$

I think such a function may only exist in the Maxwell-Boltzmann limit. Here's why:

For simplicity let us parametrize everything in terms of $\beta = 1/T$ and denote $Z(\beta) = \int{d^3p\; f_{eq}(p, \beta)}$. Rewrite the latter as $$ Z(\beta) = 4\pi \int_0^\infty{dp\;\frac{p^2}{e^{\beta E_p}\pm 1}} = 4\pi \int_m^\infty{dE\;\frac{E\sqrt{E^2-m^2}}{e^{\beta E}\pm 1}} = \\ =\frac{4\pi}{3} \int_m^\infty{dE\;\left[\frac{d}{dE}(E^2-m^2)^{3/2}\right]\frac{1}{e^{\beta E}\pm 1}} $$ and upon integrating by parts, $$ Z(\beta) = \beta \frac{4\pi}{3} \int_m^\infty{dE\; (E^2-m^2)^{3/2} \frac{e^{\beta E}}{\left(e^{\beta E}\pm 1\right)^2}} $$ Now, for given $E$ let $e^{\beta E}/\left(e^{\beta E}\pm 1\right)^2$ be the Laplace transform of $\Lambda_\pm(\epsilon; E)$, such that $$ \frac{e^{\beta E}}{\left(e^{\beta E}\pm 1\right)^2} = \int_0^\infty{d\epsilon \; \Lambda_\pm(\epsilon; E)e^{-\beta \epsilon}} $$ (I know the phrasing is awkward, but I'm trying to avoid complex plane integration issues with the inverse Laplace transform.) If $\Lambda_\pm(\epsilon; E)$ exist, substitute in $Z(\beta)$, rearrange, and obtain $$ \frac{Z(\beta)}{4\pi\beta} = \frac{1}{3}\int_0^\infty{d\epsilon \; \left[ \int_m^\infty{dE\; (E^2-m^2)^{3/2}\Lambda_\pm(\epsilon; E) }\right]e^{-\beta \epsilon}} $$ Basically, this gives us an expression for the Laplace transform of $Z(\beta)/(4\pi\beta)$. Keeping it in mind, let us look for a function $G(p )$ such that $$ \frac{1}{\beta} = \frac{1}{Z(\beta)} \int{d^3p\;G(p )f_{eq}(p,\beta)} $$ or $$ \frac{Z(\beta)}{\beta} = \int{d^3p\;G(p )f_{eq}(p,\beta)} = 4\pi\int_0^\infty{dp\; \frac{p^2G(p )}{e^{\beta E_p}\pm 1} } = 4\pi\int_m^\infty{dE\; \frac{{\bar G}(E )E \sqrt{E^2 - m^2}}{e^{\beta E}\pm 1} } $$ where ${\bar G}(E) = G(p )$. As before, let $1/\left(e^{\beta E}\pm 1\right)$ be the Laplace transform of $\Lambda^0_\pm(\epsilon; E)$, such that $$ \frac{1}{e^{\beta E}\pm 1} = \int_0^\infty{d\epsilon \; \Lambda^0_\pm(\epsilon; E)e^{-\beta \epsilon}} $$ and obtain $$ \frac{Z(\beta)}{4\pi\beta} = \int_0^\infty{d\epsilon \; \left[ \int_m^\infty{dE\; E(E^2-m^2)^{1/2}{\bar G}(E)\Lambda^0_\pm(\epsilon; E) }\right]e^{-\beta \epsilon}} $$ This is yet another expression for the Laplace transform of $Z(\beta)/(4\pi\beta)$. Identifying with the one obtained previously gives $$ \int_m^\infty{dE\; E(E^2-m^2)^{1/2}{\bar G}(E)\Lambda^0_\pm(\epsilon; E) } = \frac{1}{3} \int_m^\infty{dE\; (E^2-m^2)^{3/2}\Lambda_\pm(\epsilon; E) } $$ or $$ \int_m^\infty{dE\; (E^2-m^2)^{1/2} \left[ E \;{\bar G}(E)\Lambda^0_\pm(\epsilon; E) - \frac{1}{3} (E^2-m^2) \Lambda_\pm(\epsilon; E) \right]} = 0 $$ But ${\bar G}(E)$ has to satisfy this identity for all $\epsilon \ge 0$. This effectively implies that $\Lambda_\pm(\epsilon; E) = \chi(E) \Lambda^0_\pm(\epsilon; E)$ for some suitable $\chi(E)$ and in turn means $$ \frac{e^{\beta E}}{\left(e^{\beta E}\pm 1\right)^2} = \chi(E) \frac{1}{e^{\beta E}\pm 1}\;\;\; \Rightarrow \;\;\; \chi(E) = \frac{e^{\beta E}}{e^{\beta E}\pm 1} $$ Since the lhs above is always temperature-independent while the rhs is only in the low-temperature limit, it seems that a proper function ${\bar G}(E)$ can exist only in the same limit, when $\Lambda_\pm(\epsilon; E) \rightarrow \Lambda^0_\pm(\epsilon; E)$ and $$ {\bar G}(E) = \frac{E^2 - m^2}{3E} = \frac{p^2}{3E} $$ as you already know.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks alot for the great answer! Do you mean that $\Lambda = \Lambda^0$ in the low temperature limit? Since this is when the MB solution is valid. (You seem to say in the high-temperature limit.) $\endgroup$ – Ihle May 12 '16 at 9:08
  • $\begingroup$ Wait, $\Lambda$ is not a function of temperature, right? So why is not $\bar G(E) = \frac{p^2}{3E} \frac{\Lambda}{\Lambda^0}.$ I guess we would need the inverse Laplace transform in order to find the $\Lambda$'s, but as long as this is an integral I can solve numerically, then I am satisfied. $\endgroup$ – Ihle May 12 '16 at 9:22
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Welcome. You are right about low temp, it shows I don't do relativistic kinetics very often. About $\Lambda/\Lambda^0$: the reasoning is that ${\bar G}(E)$ cannot depend on the expansion parameter $\epsilon$, so $\Lambda/\Lambda^0$ shouldn't either, hence $\Lambda/\Lambda^0 = \chi(E)$. Now if the ratio happens to have regions of shallow dependence on $\epsilon$ other than $\beta \rightarrow \infty$, you might be able to find nontrivial solutions for ${\bar G}(E)$ around there. $\endgroup$ – udrv May 12 '16 at 11:42
  • $\begingroup$ The expression in the parenthesis should vanish for any value of $\epsilon$, right? If we just fix $\epsilon$ to a value, can't we then get an expression for $\bar G(E)$, that holds for all $E$? $\endgroup$ – Ihle May 12 '16 at 11:49
  • $\begingroup$ Well, you can always try it. Or use some sort of mean value. $\endgroup$ – udrv May 12 '16 at 16:09

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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