How does the substitution in equations 3.2.4 and 3.2.5 work?

marmot
Messages
55
Reaction score
1
I am not posting this in the homework section because it is not really a homework problem. Its from the schaum outline and I am stumped in this:

http://img379.imageshack.us/img379/688/67356569.jpg
I have NO idea about 3.2.4 and 3.2.5. Its black magic! How the hell does that substitution work?

Thanks
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
In 3.2.4 they simply take the derivatives of x and X with respect to x1 and x2.

Example:

<br /> \frac{\partial x}{\partial x_1}=\frac{\partial x_1-x_2}{\partial x_1}=\frac{\partial x_1}{\partial x_1}-\frac{\partial x_2}{\partial x_1}=1<br />

Because x2 is a constant with respect to x1. The others go the same way. In 3.2.5 they use the chain rule.
 
It's a simple partial derivative. It has nothing to do with the problem. You're looking at

\begin{array}{l}<br /> x = x_1 - x_2 \\ <br /> X = \frac{{m_1 x_1 + m_2 x_2 }}{{m_1 + m_2 }} \\ <br /> \end{array}

however the problem is stated in terms of x_1 and x_2. You're simply switching to these new variable x and X. When you want to switch variable in a problem that involves derivatives, you'll need to determine how the derivatives act. What you're looking for is instead of \frac{\partial }{{\partial x_1 }} and \frac{\partial }{{\partial x_2 }}, you're looking for \frac{\partial }{{\partial x}} and\frac{\partial }{{\partial X}}. Simple chain rule shows for example <br /> \frac{\partial }{{\partial X}} = \frac{\partial }{{\partial x_1 }}\frac{{dx_1 }}{{dX}} + \frac{\partial }{{\partial x_1 }}\frac{{dx_2 }}{{dX}}<br /> which is about what's going on except you're going the other way and looking for the what \frac{\partial }{{\partial x_1}} is and \frac{\partial }{{\partial x_2}} is
 
Last edited:
Multiply equation 14 by -1 on both sides, then plug the result into equation 13 to obtain equation 16.
 
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...
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
Is it possible, and fruitful, to use certain conceptual and technical tools from effective field theory (coarse-graining/integrating-out, power-counting, matching, RG) to think about the relationship between the fundamental (quantum) and the emergent (classical), both to account for the quasi-autonomy of the classical level and to quantify residual quantum corrections? By “emergent,” I mean the following: after integrating out fast/irrelevant quantum degrees of freedom (high-energy modes...
Back
Top