I Fourier transform of Coulomb potential

IanBerkman
Messages
52
Reaction score
1
Dear all,

In my quantum mechanics book it is stated that the Fourier transform of the Coulomb potential
$$\frac{e^2}{4\pi\epsilon_0 r}$$
results in
$$\frac{e^2}{\epsilon_0 q^2}$$

Where ##r## is the distance between the electrons and ##q## is the difference in wave vectors.

What confuses me, is how the Fourier transform of the first term is taken since the integral diverges at r = 0.
I hope anyone can clear this up for me.

Thanks,
IanEDIT: It is already solved, ##r## and ##q## need to be taken as vectors. This thread can be deleted.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
In condensed matter applications, the divergence problem is solved by introducing screened Coulomb potential (known as Yukawa Potential):

\begin{equation}
V(r) = \frac{e^2}{4\pi\epsilon_{0}} \frac{e^{-mr}}{r}
\end{equation}

One can get the usual (long-range) Coulomb potential back if one takes the limit where ## m \rightarrow 0##.

Thus, one takes the Fourier transform of the screened Coulomb potential and takes the limit ## m \rightarrow 0## to obtain the correct result.
 
  • Like
Likes IanBerkman
The Fourier transform doesn't diverge at ##r=0## in 3D. It's however UV divergent. The latter is solved by regularizing the integral with a small finite photon mass as mentioned in #2 and then make ##m \rightarrow 0##. Here I'll introduce the regularization a bit later in the calculation, leading to the same result.

So let's do it. I just transform ##1/r## to save typing the constants (the ##\epsilon_0=1## in physical units anyway). So let's evaluate
$$\tilde{V}(\vec{p})=\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} \mathrm{d}^3 \vec{x} \frac{1}{|\vec{x}|} \exp(-\mathrm{i} \vec{x} \cdot \vec{p}).$$
The first step is to introduce spherical coordinates with ##\vec{p} \neq 0## in the polar direction. Then the integral over ##\varphi \in [0,2 \pi]## is trivial, and for the integral over ##\vartheta## we introduce ##u=\cos \vartheta## and use ##\mathrm{d} \vartheta \sin \vartheta=\mathrm{d} u##, which leads to
$$\tilde{V}(\vec{p})=2 \pi \int_0^{\infty} \mathrm{d} r \int_{-1}^{1} \mathrm{d} u r \exp(-\mathrm{i} u r p).$$
The ##u## integral is easy:
$$\tilde{V}(\vec{p})=2 \pi \mathrm{i} \int_0^{\infty} \mathrm{d} r \frac{1}{p} [\exp(-\mathrm{i} r p)-\exp(\mathrm{i} r p)].$$
Now to make sense of this integral we have to regularize it by introducing a small negative (positive) imaginary part to ##p## in the left (right). Then both integrals give the same result, and together you have (taking the imaginary parts in ##p## to ##0## again)
$$\tilde{V}(\vec{p})=\frac{4 \pi}{p^2}.$$
QED.
 
  • Like
Likes IanBerkman
vanhees71 said:
The ##u## integral is easy:
$$\tilde{V}(\vec{p})=2 \pi \mathrm{i} \int_0^{\infty} \mathrm{d} r \frac{1}{p} [\exp(-\mathrm{i} r p)-\exp(\mathrm{i} r p)].$$
Now to make sense of this integral we have to regularize it by introducing a small negative (positive) imaginary part to ##p## in the left (right). Then both integrals give the same result, and together you have (taking the imaginary parts in ##p## to ##0## again)
$$\tilde{V}(\vec{p})=\frac{4 \pi}{p^2}.$$
QED.

I came to this part and found the solution to this integral somewhere, not knowing I had to use the "imaginary part" trick. I tried it on my own with this trick and got to the same conclusion.

Thanks.
 
Last edited:
Not an expert in QM. AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is quite different from the classical wave equation. The former is an equation for the dynamics of the state of a (quantum?) system, the latter is an equation for the dynamics of a (classical) degree of freedom. As a matter of fact, Schrödinger's equation is first order in time derivatives, while the classical wave equation is second order. But, AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is a wave equation; only its interpretation makes it non-classical...
I asked a question related to a table levitating but I am going to try to be specific about my question after one of the forum mentors stated I should make my question more specific (although I'm still not sure why one couldn't have asked if a table levitating is possible according to physics). Specifically, I am interested in knowing how much justification we have for an extreme low probability thermal fluctuation that results in a "miraculous" event compared to, say, a dice roll. Does a...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
Back
Top