Didn't understand what Sakurai meant by this.

  • Thread starter M. next
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Sakurai
In summary, the text suggests that you substitute the ∇′-(ie, hbar*c) into equation 2.7.30 in order to get the same form as if you substitute only ∇′ into 2.7.30. However, the form that you get is not always the same, and you need to use the substitution 2.6.32 in order to get the correct probability current.
  • #1
M. next
382
0
In Sakurai (Quantum Mechanics) (See attached).

What is meant by "which is what we expect by substitution of ∇' "? Do they mean that I have to substitute it above and I should get equation (2.6.30)? Because I tried but couldn't simplify further.

Thanks in advance.
 

Attachments

  • Sakurai.PNG
    Sakurai.PNG
    9.4 KB · Views: 538
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
You are right - the text kinda begs the question "substitute into what?" there... going only by that page, my reading is similar to yours - with a different target:

Whenever you see a ##\nabla^\prime## in equ. 2.7.30, you substitute as equ. 2.7.32
You also need to use ##\rho=|\psi|^2## and look at the "as before" to see what else to do before you get equ 2.7.31.

Notice the mass seems to appear out of nowhere - he's using another relation not on that page.

It could be that he is referring to an earlier step where the substitution could have been made.
What is the significance of 2.7.32
 
  • #3
Thank you for your reply. Here we are talking about gauge transformation. I guess he is trying to make us substitute the ∇′ -(ie/hbar*c) into 2.7.30 in order the same form as if we substitute only ∇′ into 2.7.30

But the thing is am not geting the same form, or am not knowing how to proceed and what to eliminate.
 
  • #4
Sakurai has a habit of stating things upside down and backwards. :rolleyes:

What he means here is that if you take the previous continuity equation Eq.(2.4.15) and expression for probability current Eq.(2.4.16) and make the substitution Eq.(2.7.32) you get the same contintuity equation, Eq.(2.7.30) but now with j given by Eq.(2.7.31).
 
  • Like
Likes 1 person
  • #5
What he means is that if you know the probability current in the field-free case you can get the probability current including the field simply by the substitution 2.6.32.

So there are two ways to obtain the correct probability current:
1) Derive the continuity equation from the Schrödinger equation including the correct Hamiltonian. This is what he does up until 2.6.31.
2) Take the field-free probability current as given and use the substitution 2.6.32.

Now why do we expect the substitution to work? This is essentially the substitution of the canonical momentum with the kinematical momentum again (diveded by iħ).

/edit: Apparently, I used an old version of the thread and Bill already answered. Also we seem to use different versions of Sakurai in this thread.
 
  • Like
Likes 1 person
  • #6
kith said:
/edit: Apparently, I used an old version of the thread and Bill already answered. Also we seem to use different versions of Sakurai in this thread.
S'okay, happens a lot. A good habit is to hit the "Preview" button as the very last thing just before posting, as this will pick up the current version of the thread.

The Sakurai I'm using says Second Edition, with a date of 2011.
 
  • #7
Thanks guys!
 

Related to Didn't understand what Sakurai meant by this.

1. What did Sakurai mean by "this" in his statement?

Sakurai could have been referring to a specific concept, idea, or action that was mentioned previously in the conversation or in his statement. It is important to provide context to fully understand what he meant by "this".

2. Can you provide more clarification on Sakurai's statement?

Without the specific statement or context, it is difficult to provide a clear answer. It is best to refer back to the original source or statement and analyze it in its entirety to fully understand Sakurai's meaning.

3. Is there a specific reason why Sakurai's statement was unclear?

It is possible that Sakurai's statement was unclear due to language barriers, complex concepts, or lack of context. It is important to consider these factors when trying to understand a statement.

4. Did Sakurai use any jargon or technical terms in his statement?

As a scientist, Sakurai may have used scientific jargon or technical terms in his statement. It is important to research and understand these terms in order to fully comprehend his message.

5. How can I better understand Sakurai's statement?

To better understand Sakurai's statement, it is important to first identify the key points and concepts mentioned. Then, research and analyze these points further to gain a deeper understanding. It may also be helpful to seek out additional resources or ask for clarification from Sakurai or other experts in the field.

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • Science and Math Textbooks
Replies
9
Views
492
  • Science and Math Textbooks
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • Science and Math Textbooks
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • Science and Math Textbooks
Replies
13
Views
3K
Back
Top