Derivation of current density in quantum mechanics

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion focuses on the derivation of current density in quantum mechanics, particularly through the lens of the Schrödinger and Klein-Gordon equations. Participants explore the mathematical formulation of the continuity equation and the identification of current density and probability density, as well as the implications of these derivations.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question the identification of the vector field A as the current density, noting that non-zero vector fields with zero divergence could be added without affecting the continuity equation.
  • Others argue that the continuity equation can be derived by postulating that J is a current density and ρ is a density, using flux arguments to make the identification.
  • A participant explains that the Lagrangian treatment of the Schrödinger equation allows for the application of Noether's theorem, linking global phase symmetry to charge and current densities.
  • Another participant provides a detailed derivation of the expectation value of velocity in terms of the current density, emphasizing the relationship between the wave function and the derived expressions for current density.
  • There are requests for clarification on how to show certain equalities related to the current density expressions, indicating a need for further elaboration on the mathematical steps involved.
  • One participant provides a detailed mathematical argument to demonstrate the relationships between complex numbers and the expressions for current density.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the identification of current density and the implications of the continuity equation. There is no consensus on the validity of the various approaches presented, and the discussion remains unresolved regarding the foundational aspects of current density derivation.

Contextual Notes

Some participants highlight the need for additional assumptions or clarifications regarding the mathematical steps in the derivations, particularly concerning the treatment of complex functions and operators in quantum mechanics.

Lojzek
Messages
246
Reaction score
1
I read some derivations of current density from the quantum equations of motion (like Scrödinger's and Klein-Gordon's). They derive an equation with the same form as continuity equation:

div(A)+dB/dt=0

Then they conclude that A=current density and B=density.

However there are non-zero vector fields that have zero divergence, so we could add any of them to A and the continuity equation would still be true. How can we know that A is the true expression for current density?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: VVS2000
Physics news on Phys.org
You don't really. In the case of Schroedinger, you can treat it as a classical complex field and apply Lagrangian methods. The field, being complex, has global phase symmetry, which by Noether's theorem identifies a pair of charge and currents. The charge is of the form [tex]\psi^* \psi[/tex] which we postulated is the probability density over position, and so we identify the current identified as the probability current.
 
Lojzek said:
I read some derivations of current density from the quantum equations of motion (like Scrödinger's and Klein-Gordon's). They derive an equation with the same form as continuity equation:

div(A)+dB/dt=0

Then they conclude that A=current density and B=density.

However there are non-zero vector fields that have zero divergence, so we could add any of them to A and the continuity equation would still be true. How can we know that A is the true expression for current density?

The Lagrangian treatment is done here: http://www.physics.thetangentbundle.net/wiki/Quantum_mechanics/Lagrangian_formulation

To answer your question, one normally derives the continuity equation from saying [tex]\mathbf{J}[/tex] is a current density and [tex]\rho[/tex] is a density, and then from using flux arguments. So when you derive an equation like [tex]\boldsymbol\nabla\cdot\mathbf{J} + \tfrac{\partial\rho}{\partial t} = 0[/tex], you simply recognize it as the continuity equation and make the identification.

Note, the continuity equation isn't a constitutive equation. For example, in the heat equation, the continuity equation must be supplemented by [tex]\mathbf{J} \propto \boldsymbol\nabla T[/tex]. In the case of the wavefunction, your constitutive equation is the thing you derive from the S.E.:

[tex]\mathbf{J} = \frac{\hbar}{2mi}\left(\Psi^* \vec \nabla \Psi - \Psi \vec \nabla \Psi^*\right) = \frac\hbar m \mbox{Im}(\Psi^*\vec\nabla\Psi)=\mbox{Re}(\Psi^* \frac{\hbar}{im} \vec\nabla \Psi)[/tex]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
We have

[tex]\mathbf{\hat{p}}=m\mathbf{\hat{v}} \Leftrightarrow \mathbf{\hat{v}}=\frac{\mathbf{\hat{p}}}{m} = \frac{-i\hbar\mathbf{\nabla}}{m}=\frac{\hbar\mathbf{\nabla}}{im}[/tex]

and if we assume that the wave function is normalized, we will get the expectation value of the particle's velocity by

[tex]\left<\mathbf{\hat{v}}\right> = \left<\Psi\left|\mathbf{\hat{v}}\right|\Psi\right> = \left<\Psi\left|\frac{\hbar}{im}\mathbf{\nabla}\right|\Psi\right> = \int\limits_{}^{}\Psi^*\frac{\hbar}{im}\mathbf{\nabla}\Psi\, dV.[/tex]

where [tex]dV[/tex] is a small volume element. If we define

[tex]\mathbf{J_\mathbb{C}} = \Psi^*\frac{\hbar}{im}\mathbf{\nabla}\Psi[/tex]

so that

[tex]\mathbf{J} = \mbox{Re}(\mathbf{J_\mathbb{C}})[/tex]

we get the simple relation

[tex]\left<\mathbf{\hat{v}}\right> = \int\limits_{}^{}\mathbf{J_\mathbb{C}}\, dV.[/tex]

I think this is a fundamental property that you want to have.

Let's continue with looking at how the expectation value of the position changes with time. It is well known that the time derivative of the expectation value of a time-independent operator [tex]\hat{A}[/tex] easily can be obtained using the Hamiltonian, namely

[tex]\frac{d}{dt}\left<\hat{A}\right> = (i\hbar)^{-1}\left<\left[\hat{A},\,\hat{H}\right]\right>[/tex]

so in our case we have

[tex]\frac{d}{dt}\left<\hat{x}\right> = (i\hbar)^{-1}\left<\left[\hat{x},\,\hat{H}\right]\right> = (i\hbar)^{-1}\left<\left[\hat{x},\,\frac{\mathbf{\hat{p}}^2}{2m}+V(\mathbf{r},\,t)\right]\right>[/tex]

Since [tex]\hat{x}[/tex] commutes with [tex]V(\mathbf{r},t)[/tex] and also with [tex]\hat{p}_y[/tex] and [tex]\hat{p}_z[/tex], we have

[tex]\frac{d}{dt}\left<\hat{x}\right> = \frac{1}{2mi\hbar}\left<\left[\hat{x},\,\hat{p}_x^2}\right]\right> = \frac{1}{2mi\hbar}\left<\left[\hat{x},\,\hat{p}_x}\right]\hat{p}_x + \hat{p}_x\left[\hat{x},\,\hat{p}_x}\right]\right>[/tex]

We know that [tex]\left[\hat{x},\hat{p}_x\right]=i\hbar[/tex], so we get

[tex]\frac{d}{dt}\left<\hat{x}\right> = \frac{1}{2mi\hbar}\left<i\hbar\hat{p}_x + \hat{p}_x i\hbar\right> = \frac{\left<\hat{p}_x\right>}{m}[/tex]

Since we will get the same result with the expectation values of y and z, we obtain

[tex]\frac{d}{dt}\left<\mathbf{\hat{r}}\right> = \frac{\left<\mathbf{\hat{p}}\right>}{m} = \left<\mathbf{\hat{v}}\right>[/tex]

Using the result from above, we get

[tex]\frac{d}{dt}\left<\mathbf{\hat{r}}\right> = \int\limits_{}^{}\mathbf{J_\mathbb{C}}\, dV.[/tex]

Or, if we would so like

[tex]\frac{d}{dt}\left<\mathbf{\hat{r}}\right> = \left<\mathbf{\hat{v}}\right> = \int\limits_{}^{}\mathbf{J_\mathbb{C}}\, dV.[/tex]
 
lbrits said:
[tex]\mathbf{J} = \frac{\hbar}{2mi}\left(\Psi^* \vec \nabla \Psi - \Psi \vec \nabla \Psi^*\right) = \frac\hbar m \mbox{Im}(\Psi^*\vec\nabla\Psi)=\mbox{Re}(\Psi^* \frac{\hbar}{im} \vec\nabla \Psi)[/tex]

How can I show this?
 
See post #3; just use the Lagrangian specified in http://www.physics.thetangentbundle.net/wiki/Quantum_mechanics/Lagrangian_formulation

From this you can derive
a) the S.E. by applying the Euler-Lagrange equations and
b) probability and current density by applying Noether's theorem for the global U(1) symmetry of the wave function
 
Last edited by a moderator:
My doubt is more basic. How do I show the equalities?
 
please correct latex equation
 
andremelzi said:
My doubt is more basic. How do I show the equalities?

If z is a complex number, then [tex]z=z_{1}+iz_{2}[/tex] and its complex conjugate is [tex]z^*=z_{1}-iz_{2}[/tex] Then it is easy to prove [tex]z+z^*=z_{1}+iz_{2}+z_{1}-iz_{2}=2z_{1}[/tex] and from this is is obvious that [tex]z_{1}=\mbox{Re}\left(z\right)=\frac{z+z^*}{2}[/tex]

Similarly, [tex]z_{2}=\mbox{Im}\left(z\right)=\frac{z-z^*}{2}[/tex]

Now consider a complex-valued function [tex]\psi[/tex] and some operator whose result is also complex valued: [tex]\hat{O}\psi[/tex]. Now let our complex number z be [tex]z=\psi^*\left(\hat{O}\psi\right)[/tex]. Then from the above identity, [tex]\frac{1}{2}\left[\psi^*\left(\hat{O}\psi\right)+\psi\left(\hat{O} \psi \right)^*\right]=\mbox{Re}\left[\psi^*\left(\hat{O}\psi\right)\right][/tex]

Now we substitute the general operator for the quantum mechanical momentum operator, [tex]\hat{O}=\frac{\hbar}{i}\nabla[/tex]

Then we find [tex]\hat{O}\psi=\frac{\hbar}{i}\nabla\psi[/tex] and [tex]\left(\hat{O}\psi\right)^*=-\frac{\hbar}{i}\nabla\psi^*[/tex]

Then it follows that [tex]\mbox{Re}\left[\psi^*\left(\hat{O}\psi\right)\right]=\mbox{Re}\left[\psi^*\frac{\hbar}{i}\nabla\psi\right]=\frac{1}{2}\left[\psi^*\frac{\hbar}{i}\nabla\psi-\psi\frac{\hbar}{i}\nabla\psi^*\right]=\frac{\hbar}{2i}\left[\psi^*\nabla\psi-\psi\nabla\psi^*\right][/tex]

Now if [tex]z=\left(\psi^*\nabla\psi\right)[/tex]

then [tex]z^*=\psi\nabla\psi^*[/tex]

So we get the second identity (which has a typo in the previous post): [tex]\frac{\hbar}{im}\mbox{Im}\left[\psi^*\nabla\psi\right]=\frac{\hbar}{2mi}\left[\psi^*\nabla\psi-\psi\nabla\psi^*\right][/tex]

Put it all together and you get the equality
[tex]\frac{\hbar}{2mi}\left[\psi^*\nabla\psi-\psi\nabla\psi^*\right]=\frac{\hbar}{im}\mbox{Im}\left[\psi^*\nabla\psi\right]=\mbox{Re}\left[\psi^*\frac{\hbar}{im}\nabla\psi\right][/tex]
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: MrRobot and Jimster41

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 44 ·
2
Replies
44
Views
6K