Register to reply

Gauge Invariance

by tbthomps
Tags: gauge, invariance
Share this thread:
tbthomps
#1
Feb19-10, 05:55 PM
P: 2
1. The problem statement, all variables and given/known data

So I was doing a problem out of Merzbacher 3rd edition (end of chapter 4 problem 3); the homework set has already been turned in but I wanted to run this by you all and see what you thought.

I am essentially working with a particle in a 1-d ring constrained to the x-y plane in 3space in the presence of a magnetic field given by

A = C ( -y / x^2+y^2 , x / x^2+y^2 , 0) where C is constant and phi (in the electric field) is assumed to be identically zero.

I was asked to find the corresponding energy spectrum En.


2. Relevant equations

None (read next section)


3. The attempt at a solution

The approach I took was to first change gauges; you can see that A is simply the negative gradient of arctan(x/y) times a constant so letting f(x,y,z) = C*arctan(x/y) we get that our new gauge A2 = A1 + grad(f) = 0

Since an energy spectrum is gauge-invariant it should suffice to find the spectrum in this new gauge; the Hamiltonian corresponding to the new gauge is simply the canonical energy Hamiltonian.

So Im thinking "awesome"; the solutions to this particular problem are well understood (in the presence of no magnetic field) and can be seen at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_in_a_ring

My Question

According to a colleague (who read a solution out of a book somewhere) the energy spectrum is NOT the same as the one in the the linked article above (the 1-d box with no magnetic field); the spectrum he found was the canonical one + value depending on C.

So my question is.. what did I do wrong? It is easily proven that Gauge transformations leave the energy operator invariant ( That is, measuring the energy of a solution in one gauge and the corresponding solution in to second gauge give the same result)

The only thing I can think of is that my scalar function f(x,y,z) and its gradient had singularities and therefore are not admissible (even though both the function and the gradient exist except on a measure-zero set in 2-space)

Can anyone shed any light on the failing of my procedure? ( I saw the textbook my friend referenced and i understand the procedure it took; so im simply asking where mine broke down)
Phys.Org News Partner Science news on Phys.org
New type of solar concentrator desn't block the view
Researchers demonstrate ultra low-field nuclear magnetic resonance using Earth's magnetic field
Asian inventions dominate energy storage systems
tbthomps
#2
Feb19-10, 10:13 PM
P: 2
Found my problem; the issue at hand was I was being too mathematician-y :P

The problem is that this particular choice of function, f(x,y,z) (above), is not a valid gauge transform for this system. Gauge transforms (as it clearly says in merzbacher) must PRESERVE the resulting magnetic field.

Simply put, Curl ( grad (f) ) is not zero (for this choice of f) and thus the resulting magnetic field from my gauge transform is

B2 = curl (A2) = curl ( A + grad(f) ) = curl (0) = 0

whereas the original magnetic field was B1 = curl(A) was nonzero

The text said 'where f(x,y,z,t) is any function' and I took the word 'any' too literally (being a math guy) and lost sight of the underlying physics of gauge transforms.

Thanks to anyone who read and thought about this.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
What is Gauge Invariance in QFT? High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics 15
Gauge invariance Quantum Physics 4
Gauge invariance and it's relation to gauge bosons High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics 6