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

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on deriving Ehrenfest's Theorem, specifically proving that \(\frac{d\langle p \rangle}{dt} = -\frac{\partial V}{\partial x}\). Participants analyze the derivation process using the Schrödinger equation and integration by parts. Key points include the necessity of applying the product rule when differentiating and ensuring proper handling of boundary terms due to the normalizability of wavefunctions. The conversation emphasizes the importance of sign management during integration and suggests exploring the more general form of Ehrenfest's Theorem for broader applications.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of quantum mechanics concepts, particularly Ehrenfest's Theorem.
  • Familiarity with the Schrödinger equation and its implications.
  • Proficiency in calculus, specifically integration by parts.
  • Knowledge of wavefunction properties, including normalizability.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation of the general form of Ehrenfest's Theorem: \(\frac{d}{dt}\langle A\rangle = \frac{1}{i\hbar}\langle [A,H] \rangle + \left\langle \frac{\partial A}{\partial t}\right\rangle\).
  • Review integration techniques in quantum mechanics, focusing on integration by parts.
  • Examine the implications of wavefunction normalizability in quantum mechanics.
  • Explore advanced topics in quantum mechanics related to operator algebra and commutation relations.
USEFUL FOR

Students and professionals in quantum mechanics, particularly those studying Ehrenfest's Theorem, quantum dynamics, and wavefunction analysis. This discussion is beneficial for anyone looking to deepen their understanding of the mathematical foundations of quantum theory.

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
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
29
Views
2K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · 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