Ehrenfest's Theorem Homework: Solve for d<p>/dt

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around Ehrenfest's Theorem, specifically the derivation of the time derivative of the expectation value of momentum,

, in quantum mechanics. Participants are attempting to show that \(\frac{d

}{dt} = < - \frac{\partial V}{\partial x}>\) using the Schrödinger equation and integration techniques.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants are attempting to derive the expression for \(\frac{d

    }{dt}\) by integrating the wave function and its derivatives. There are discussions about the validity of moving operators and the implications of the product rule in differentiation. Some participants express confusion over the signs and terms that arise during integration by parts.

Discussion Status

The discussion is active, with participants providing feedback on each other's attempts. Some guidance has been offered regarding the use of integration by parts and the treatment of derivatives. There is recognition of the need to keep track of signs and terms during calculations. Multiple interpretations of the problem are being explored, particularly concerning the application of the Schrödinger equation.

Contextual Notes

Participants are working under the constraints of deriving results consistent with quantum mechanics principles, specifically the normalization of wave functions and the implications of boundary conditions. There is an acknowledgment of the complexity involved in the integration process and the need for careful handling of terms.

roeb
Messages
98
Reaction score
1

Homework Statement


Show that \frac{d&lt;p&gt;}{dt} = &lt; - \frac{\partial V}{\partial x}&gt;

Homework Equations


The Attempt at a Solution



I am trying to repeat the derivation that griffiths gives for deriving <p>, but it doesn't seem to give me anything that would indicate this proof is correct.

<p> = \int \psi^* (\hbar \frac{\partial}{\partial x} ) \psi dx

d<p>/dt = \int -\hbar i \frac{\partial }{\partial x} \frac{\partial }{\partial t} | \psi |^2 dx

= \int -\hbar i \frac{\partial }{\partial x} ( \psi^* \frac{\partial \psi}{\partial x} - \psi \frac{ \partial \psi^*}{\partial x} )dx = -2 \hbar i \int \frac{\partial}{\partial x} ( \psi^* \frac{\partial \psi }{\partial x} ) dx

I was thinking about going about it the other way and calculating < -dV/dx >, but unfortunately I realized I can't really think of a way to do that directly with the Schrödinger equation.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
roeb said:

Homework Statement


Show that \frac{d&lt;p&gt;}{dt} = &lt; - \frac{\partial V}{\partial x}&gt;

Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution



I am trying to repeat the derivation that griffiths gives for deriving <p>, but it doesn't seem to give me anything that would indicate this proof is correct.

<p> = \int \psi^* (\hbar \frac{\partial}{\partial x} ) \psi dx

d<p>/dt = \int -\hbar i \frac{\partial }{\partial x} \frac{\partial }{\partial t} | \psi |^2 dx

= \int -\hbar i \frac{\partial }{\partial x} ( \psi^* \frac{\partial \psi}{\partial x} - \psi \frac{ \partial \psi^*}{\partial x} )dx = -2 \hbar i \int \frac{\partial}{\partial x} ( \psi^* \frac{\partial \psi }{\partial x} ) dx

I was thinking about going about it the other way and calculating < -dV/dx >, but unfortunately I realized I can't really think of a way to do that directly with the Schrödinger equation.

On your second step, you cannot carry \psi^* over from the operators and multiply it with \psi

What you really need to do is replace \frac{\partial}{\partial t}\psi with the hamiltonian according to the Schrödinger equation. You can carry the operators over each other that is correct. But do not forget that when you are taking the the time derivative inside, there is a product rule out there.

Then you will need to do several integrations by parts to be left with &lt; - \frac{\partial V}{\partial x}&gt; take into account the fact that the boundary terms when integrating by parts will be zero due to our functions being normalizable.

P.S.

I attached my solution as a pdf if you want to look at it

Also when you are done with this problem, you may want to show that

\frac{d}{dt}\langle A\rangle = \frac{1}{i\hbar}\langle [A,H] \rangle + \left\langle \frac{\partial A}{\partial t}\right\rangle

with pretty much the same method you used for your original question. The equality above is the actual form of Ehrenfest's Theorem which is more general. I am not being an *** by saying this, I believe that it is good practice and this is merely a suggestion. I am telling this to avoid future misunderstandings.

Good Luck.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thanks for your reply,

here is what I have so far, I feel like I am getting close:

&lt;p&gt; = -i \hbar \int \Psi^* \frac{\partial \Psi}{\partial x}dx
\frac{d&lt;p&gt;}{dt} = -i \hbar \int \frac{\partial \Psi^*}{\partial t}\frac{\partial \Psi}{\partial x} + \Psi^* \frac{\partial^2\Psi}{\partial x \partial t} dx
= -i \hbar \int \frac{\partial \Psi^*}{\partial t}\frac{\partial \Psi}{\partial x} - \frac{\partial \Psi^*}{\partial x} \frac{\partial \Psi}{\partial t} dx
Substituting in \frac{\partial \Psi}{\partial t} and \frac{\partial \Psi^*}{\partial t} from Schrödinger's equation:= -i \hbar \int \frac{i}{\hbar } V \frac{\partial}{\partial x} ( \Psi \Psi^* ) - \frac{i \hbar}{2 m } \frac{\partial}{\partial x} ( \frac{\partial \Psi}{\partial x} \frac{\partial \Psi^*}{\partial x} ) dx

So with the exception of a sign problem... I can see \int \frac{\partial V}{\partial x} \Psi \Psi^*dx = <dV/dx>

But unfortunately it doesn't appear like the second term is going to disappear, is there anything I am missing?(Note I used: \frac{\partial \Psi}{\partial t} = \frac{ i \hbar}{2 m }\frac{\partial^2\Psi}{\partial x^2} - \frac{i}{\hbar} V \Psi and \frac{\partial \Psi^*}{\partial t} = -\frac{ i \hbar}{2 m }\frac{\partial^2\Psi^*}{\partial x^2} + \frac{i}{\hbar} V \Psi^* as given by Griffiths)
 
roeb said:
\frac{d&lt;p&gt;}{dt} = -i \hbar \int \frac{\partial \Psi^*}{\partial t}\frac{\partial \Psi}{\partial x} + \Psi^* \frac{\partial^2\Psi}{\partial x \partial t} dx
= -i \hbar \int \frac{\partial \Psi^*}{\partial t}\frac{\partial \Psi}{\partial x} - \frac{\partial \Psi^*}{\partial x} \frac{\partial \Psi}{\partial t} dx

Hmmm...

\Psi^* \frac{\partial^2\Psi}{\partial x \partial t}= \Psi^* \frac{\partial}{\partial x} \left(\frac{\partial\Psi}{\partial t}\right)\neq - \frac{\partial \Psi^*}{\partial x} \frac{\partial \Psi}{\partial t}

Why did you think you could transfer the partial derivative from \frac{\partial \Psi}{\partial t} to \Psi^* like this?
 
gabbagabbahey said:
Hmmm...

\Psi^* \frac{\partial^2\Psi}{\partial x \partial t}= \Psi^* \frac{\partial}{\partial x} \left(\frac{\partial\Psi}{\partial t}\right)\neq - \frac{\partial \Psi^*}{\partial x} \frac{\partial \Psi}{\partial t}

Why did you think you could transfer the partial derivative from \frac{\partial \Psi}{\partial t} to \Psi^* like this?

Underneath the integral, that's perfectly fine. Since the wavefunction is normalizable, it (and it's derivatives) will go to 0 at infinity and -infinity (the implied limits of integration), so integration by parts let's you transfer the derivative at the cost of a sign without having to worry about the boundary term.

As for roeb, you're so close! That term you mentioned will cancel out if you keep track of your signs closely. Remember to change the signs when you integrate by parts. And don't bother trying to write it as the derivative of something, it will cancel out before that if you keep all of your signs in the right places.

Also, good call by guguma on learning/proving the more general form of Ehernfest's Theorem; it can get you a lot of these special cases much more quickly (though doing this one by brute force is still a good exercise).
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
29
Views
2K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K