Goldstein schodinger's equation Lagragian problem.

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Peeter
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Goldstein Lagragian
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around a problem from Goldstein's classical mechanics concerning the Lagrangian for a field theory. Participants are examining the Lagrangian's formulation, specifically its terms and potential typographical errors, and how these relate to deriving Schrödinger's equation.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant identifies a potential typo in the Lagrangian, suggesting that the term should include a factor of h/4πi instead of h/2πi to correctly derive Schrödinger's equation.
  • Another participant confirms that the Lagrangian remains the same in their edition, indicating consistency across different editions.
  • A third participant suggests checking an errata page for corrections related to the Lagrangian.
  • Further elaboration includes a detailed breakdown of the Lagrangian and its derivatives, highlighting a discrepancy in the time derivative term that appears to be off by a factor of two.
  • One participant recalls a previous discussion about the necessity of the 1/2 factor in Hermitian Lagrangians, contrasting it with non-Hermitian forms.
  • Another participant inquires about the specific page and chapter of the problem in the third edition, seeking clarification on the location of the issue.
  • A later reply provides information confirming that the correction was made prior to the first printing of the third edition, indicating that the factor of 1/4 is present in all printings.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the necessity of the factor in the Lagrangian, with some recalling it as a typo while others affirm its presence in their editions. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the implications of these factors on the derivation of Schrödinger's equation.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the discussion involves assumptions about the nature of the Lagrangian (Hermitian vs. non-Hermitian) and the specific editions of the text, which may affect interpretations of the problem.

Peeter
Messages
303
Reaction score
3
Problem 3 in the continuous systems and fields chapter of (the first edition, 1956 printing) of Goldstein's classical mechanics has the following Lagrangian:

[tex] L = \frac{h^2}{8 \pi^2 m} \nabla \psi \cdot \nabla \psi^{*}<br /> + V \psi \psi^{*}<br /> + \frac{h}{2\pi i}<br /> ( \psi^{*} \dot{\psi}<br /> - \psi \dot{\psi}^{*} )[/tex]

The problem is to treat [itex]\psi[/itex] and its conjugate as independent field variables and show that this generates Schrödinger's equation and its conjugate.

Doing the problem I find I need [itex]h/4\pi i[/itex] in this last term to make it work out. Could somebody with a newer edition of this text see if this is a corrected typo?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Still the same eq for the Lagrangian density.

I have third edition.
 
Does anybody see where I went wrong:

[tex] L <br /> = \frac{h^2}{8 \pi^2 m} \nabla \psi \cdot \nabla \psi^{*} + V \psi \psi^{*} + \frac{h}{2 \pi i} ( \psi^{*} \partial_t \psi - \psi \partial_t \psi^{*} )[/tex]
[tex] = \frac{h^2}{8 \pi^2 m} \partial_k \psi \partial_k \psi^{*} + V \psi \psi^{*} + <br /> \frac{h}{2 \pi i} ( \psi^{*} \partial_t \psi - \psi \partial_t \psi^{*} )[/tex]

We have
[tex] \frac{\partial L}{\partial \psi^{*} } = V\psi + \frac{h}{2 \pi i} \partial_t \psi[/tex]

and canonical momenta
[tex] \frac{\partial L}{\partial{(\partial_k \psi^{*})}} = \frac{h^2}{8 \pi^2 m} \partial_{k} \psi[/tex]
[tex] \frac{\partial L}{\partial{(\partial_t \psi^{*})}} = -\frac{h}{2 \pi i} {\psi}[/tex]

[tex] \frac{\partial L}{\partial \psi^{*}} = \sum_k \partial_k \frac{\partial L}{\partial{(\partial_k \psi^{*})}} + \partial_t \frac{\partial L}{\partial{(\partial_t \psi^{*})}}[/tex]
[tex] V\psi + \frac{h}{2 \pi i} \partial_t \psi = \frac{h^2}{8 \pi^2 m} \sum_k \partial_{kk} \psi -\frac{h}{2 \pi i} \frac{\partial \psi}{\partial{t}}[/tex]

which is off by a factor of two in the time term
[tex] -\frac{h^2}{8 \pi^2 m} \nabla^2 \psi + V\psi = \frac{h i}{\pi} \frac{\partial \psi}{\partial{t}}[/tex]
 
Peeter said:
Problem 3 in the continuous systems and fields chapter of (the first edition, 1956 printing) of Goldstein's classical mechanics has the following Lagrangian:

[tex] L = \frac{h^2}{8 \pi^2 m} \nabla \psi \cdot \nabla \psi^{*}<br /> + V \psi \psi^{*}<br /> + \frac{h}{2\pi i}<br /> ( \psi^{*} \dot{\psi}<br /> - \psi \dot{\psi}^{*} )[/tex]

The problem is to treat [itex]\psi[/itex] and its conjugate as independent field variables and show that this generates Schrödinger's equation and its conjugate.

Doing the problem I find I need [itex]h/4\pi i[/itex] in this last term to make it work out. Could somebody with a newer edition of this text see if this is a corrected typo?

You are right. I remember this "typo"! I wonder why it has not been corrected after all these years?
The 1/2 factor is necessary when working with Hermitian Lagrangians like the one you wrote. Non-hermitian Lagrangian on the other hand does not need the 1/2, but does the same job;

[tex]\mathcal{L} = i \hbar \psi^{*}\partial_{t}\psi - \frac{\hbar^{2}}{2m} \partial_{i}\psi^{*}\partial_{i}\psi - V(x) \psi^{*}\psi[/tex]

regards

sam
 
Thanks Sam.

Malawi,

What page and chapter is this problem in, in the third edition?

EDIT: fyi. I reported the problem and got the following response:

> I looked in the 1st, 4th and 6th printings of the 3rd edition. The problem appears on page 599 (#4). The correction you sent was made before the 1st printing since the 1/4 appears on page 599 of all printings.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
3K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K