Conserved quantity for a particle in Magnetic Field

Siberion
Messages
31
Reaction score
1

Homework Statement



Consider a particle of mass m and electric charge e moving in a uniform magnetic field given by B = Bẑ. Then the Lagrangian is given by:

L = \frac{m}{2}(x'^2 + y'^2 + z'^2) + \frac{Be}{2}(xy' - yx')

Prove that Q={L} \cdot{B} + \frac{e}{2}((r \times B)(r \times B)) is a constant of motion, where L = r x p is the angular momentum.

The Attempt at a Solution



I proceeded to calculate the conjugated momenta,

Px = mx' - ey/2
Py = my' + ex/2
Pz = mz'

Then I calculated the Hamiltonian. A lot of terms vanished and I ended up with just kinetic energy.

H = \frac{m}{2} (x'^2 + y'^2 + z'^2) which is a conserved quantity.

I was expecting to also end up with a term for the potential. Is this caused by the fact that the magnetic field does no work on the particle so it doesn't affect the total energy?

I expressed the hamiltonian in terms of the generalized momenta:

H= \frac{m}{2}(Px^2 + Py^2 + Pz^2 + \frac{(Be^2)(x^2+y^2)}{4}+eB(yPx-xPy))I tried re-arranging Q in terms of the vector position r = xî + yĵ + zk , while p would correspond to m(x' + y' + z')

After doing dot and cross product operations, I ended up with the following expression for Q:

Q = (xy' - yx')B + (e{B^2}/2) (x^2 + y^2)

which doesn't depend on z nor z', which gives me trouble when relating terms to the hamiltonian.

Is there any flaw in my procedure? I've tried rearranging terms, playing with algebra, but I don't come up with anything satisfactory.

Also, is the quantity Q a well known quantity? Is there something too obvious I'm missing here?

Thanks for your help. It is really, really appreciated.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Siberion said:
Then I calculated the Hamiltonian. A lot of terms vanished and I ended up with just kinetic energy.

H = \frac{m}{2} (x'^2 + y'^2 + z'^2) which is a conserved quantity.

I was expecting to also end up with a term for the potential. Is this caused by the fact that the magnetic field does no work on the particle so it doesn't affect the total energy?

I expressed the hamiltonian in terms of the generalized momenta:

H= \frac{m}{2}(Px^2 + Py^2 + Pz^2 + \frac{(Be^2)(x^2+y^2)}{4}+eB(yPx-xPy))

In a uniform magnetic field, the scalar potential ##\phi## can be chosen to be zero. The vector potential ##\textbf{A}## can be chosen as ##\textbf{A} = \textbf{B} \times \textbf{r}/2 ##, so you could express the Hamiltonian in terms of the vector potential if you wished.

I tried re-arranging Q in terms of the vector position r = xî + yĵ + zk , while p would correspond to m(x' + y' + z')

After doing dot and cross product operations, I ended up with the following expression for Q:

Q = (xy' - yx')B + (e{B^2}/2) (x^2 + y^2)

which doesn't depend on z nor z', which gives me trouble when relating terms to the hamiltonian.

Is there any flaw in my procedure? I've tried rearranging terms, playing with algebra, but I don't come up with anything satisfactory.

It all looks ok to me. Try taking the time derivative of ##Q## and see if it equals zero.
 
Thanks a lot TSny, according to what I calculated, using E-L equations, its derivative indeed equals to zero. I got lost trying to rearrange the Hamiltonian, I should have checked the derivative of Q at first.
 
Thread 'Need help understanding this figure on energy levels'
This figure is from "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" by Griffiths (3rd edition). It is available to download. It is from page 142. I am hoping the usual people on this site will give me a hand understanding what is going on in the figure. After the equation (4.50) it says "It is customary to introduce the principal quantum number, ##n##, which simply orders the allowed energies, starting with 1 for the ground state. (see the figure)" I still don't understand the figure :( Here is...
Thread 'Understanding how to "tack on" the time wiggle factor'
The last problem I posted on QM made it into advanced homework help, that is why I am putting it here. I am sorry for any hassle imposed on the moderators by myself. Part (a) is quite easy. We get $$\sigma_1 = 2\lambda, \mathbf{v}_1 = \begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ 0 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_2 = \lambda, \mathbf{v}_2 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_3 = -\lambda, \mathbf{v}_3 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ -1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} $$ There are two ways...
Back
Top