How does QM explain that we see electrons circulating in a magnetic field?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around how quantum mechanics (QM) explains the behavior of electrons in a magnetic field, particularly focusing on the classical analogy of circular motion and the role of angular momentum. Participants explore the implications of quantum formalism, including Hamiltonians and wave packets, in relation to classical physics concepts.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest that QM can explain classical phenomena using mean values and that electrons rotate in a magnetic field at a macroscopic scale.
  • There is a proposal that the quantization of angular momentum may be relevant to understanding the behavior of electrons in a magnetic field.
  • One participant discusses the evolution of an electron's state in a magnetic field and questions how to derive the radius of its circular motion.
  • Another participant mentions that a localized wave packet in a magnetic field behaves similarly to classical electrons in a cyclotron motion.
  • Concerns are raised about the absence of a force concept in QM, with some arguing that classical orbits can be described without invoking forces.
  • Participants discuss the formulation of magnetic forces in QM through momentum-dependent potentials in the Hamiltonian.
  • The Ehrenfest theorem is introduced as a means to relate quantum expectations to classical forces, with questions about how to demonstrate orthogonality and constancy of norms using quantum arguments.
  • There is a discussion about the differences between canonical momentum and kinetic momentum in the presence of a magnetic field, emphasizing gauge invariance.
  • Some participants express confusion regarding the emergence of circular motion from the Landau gauge and the role of forces in this context.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the role of forces in QM and the applicability of classical analogies. While some agree on the utility of the Ehrenfest theorem, others challenge the interpretation of forces and momentum in the context of magnetic fields. The discussion remains unresolved with multiple competing views.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the complexity of the mathematics involved in applying the Ehrenfest theorem and the distinctions between different types of momentum in magnetic fields. There are references to specific Hamiltonians and gauge choices that may affect the interpretation of results.

  • #31
Heidi said:
I do not see how to visualize latex formulas in this forum.

See "Delimiting your LaTeX code" in Physics Forums help for LaTeX,

https://www.physicsforums.com/help/latexhelp/
 
  • Informative
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Heidi and Twigg
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
If you're not sure how to evaluate the energy from the Hamiltonian ##H = \hbar \omega (a^\dagger a + \frac{1}{2})##, then you may want to review the harmonic oscillator in the ladder operator picture. It's discussed in pretty much any serious quantum textbook, undergraduate or graduate level. Griffiths (2nd Ed.) section 2.3.1 is a good place to start. (You can later derive the coherent states step-by-step with hints in Problem 3.35.)

Heidi said:
there are also the formulas in the Landau book. n and m are definite and i read
E = hbar omega (n + m + 1/2)

are they talking about the same energy?
Yes, just in terms of quantum numbers that describe different basis states (sounds like eigenmodes in cartesian coordinates?). The energies are always the same, in any basis and any gauge. If you're quoting a result from Landau, please share which volume and section you are reading from so we can see what you're looking at.
 
  • #33
It is in vol 3 quantum mechanics (non relativistic)
chapter xv motion in a magetic field . problem 1 page 460
we have E depending on n and m and it is written that it is equivalent to 112.7 where there is no m.
we have here |m| + m which is null if m négative but is it so here?
 
  • #34
j bought the first part of the paper written by Kuo-Ho Yang . Thank you VanHees71. I ignored that an hamiltonian could be cut in 2 parts. A "basis" part with a basis of orthonormal eigenvectors and a residual part. Here the résidual part is omega times Lz i suppose.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
680
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
853
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K