3
$\begingroup$

I have a question about Bose-Einstein condensation. Namely, people say that if we go from the summation over the number of particles to an integral using the density of states, we make a flaw in the calculation if the temperature is below the critical temperature and therefore we write:

$N = N_0 + N_{ex}$.

Where $N$ is the total number of particles, $N_0$ is the number of particles in the ground-state and $N_{ex}$ is the number of particles in the excited states (given by the integral that contains the density of states).

Now my question is: why do some references like Yoshioka statistical physics say that we miss the particles in the ground state since $D(\epsilon)=0$ for the density of states while this expression is inside an integral? Could somebody give a more rigorous proof or reference for this?

$\endgroup$
3
$\begingroup$

If for instance $D(\epsilon)\propto \sqrt{\epsilon}$ then $\int_0^{\Delta\epsilon} d\epsilon D(\epsilon)\approx0$ for any small $\Delta\epsilon$. But what you have to keep in mind is that the proper expression is \begin{equation} N= \sum_{i=1}^\infty n_i \neq \int_0^\infty d\epsilon D(\epsilon) \end{equation} Approximating the sum by the integral does not hold if $n_1$ is $O(N)$, because the density assigns no weight to the ground state (at $\epsilon=0$). If you count the occupations in the interval $[0,\Delta \epsilon]$ discretely you always have $n_1=O(N)$in the sum, no matter how small $\Delta \epsilon$ is. But using the integral on the right you get $\int_0^{\Delta\epsilon} d\epsilon D(\epsilon)\propto \Delta \epsilon^{3/2}\rightarrow0$ as $\epsilon\rightarrow0$.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ How do you define $\Delta \epsilon$ 'small'? Does this mean that it is between the ground state and the first excited state? Thanks already for the answer. $\endgroup$ – Dani Sep 13 '18 at 12:49
  • $\begingroup$ @dani for approximating the sum by a continuous density, you have to assume that there are many energy levels within the interval $\Delta\epsilon$. Otherwise $D(\epsilon)$ would never be smooth. I updated the answer. $\endgroup$ – jkds Sep 14 '18 at 7:01

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.