From Langevin to Fokker-Planck

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jezuz
  • Start date Start date
Jezuz
Messages
29
Reaction score
0
Hi.
I'm studying quantum Brownian motion right now and I need to see that the (classical) Langevin equation for a Brownian particle is equivalent to the Fokker-Planck equation for the phase-space distribution function of the same particle.
Does anyone know where I can find such a derivation? I've been looking all over the internet for it but usually they start with a Langevin equation containging only first derivatives (that is the have excluded the possible outer potential felt by the particle).
I need the derivation for the case where i have a Langevin equation of the type:
m \ddot x(t) + \gamma \dot x(t) + V(x(t)) = F(t)
(written in LaTeX syntax).
I would be very grateful for help!
Alternatively, since I have the derivation for the Langevin equation starting with a Lagrangian for a particle interacting linearly with a bath of harmonic oscillators (initially in thermal equilibrium), I could also accept a derviation of the Fokker-Planck equation starting with the same assumptions.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
For such stochastic methods, a very good book is "Handbook of Stochastic Methods" by C. Gardiner. Written by an expert in the field, this book is very physical and to the point unlike many other excessively mathematical treatments of stochastic processes.

If you're interested, I can step you through the derivation here, but you should get that book for sure.
 
Okej!
Thank you very much. I'll have a look at that book. Found it at the university library. If there is something I get stuck with I might ask you again :)
 
There are two things I don't understand about this problem. First, when finding the nth root of a number, there should in theory be n solutions. However, the formula produces n+1 roots. Here is how. The first root is simply ##\left(r\right)^{\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)}##. Then you multiply this first root by n additional expressions given by the formula, as you go through k=0,1,...n-1. So you end up with n+1 roots, which cannot be correct. Let me illustrate what I mean. For this...
Back
Top