Landau Energy Spectrum in the non-relativistic limit

AI Thread Summary
In the non-relativistic limit, the relationship between mass (m), momentum (p), and energy (E) is explored, highlighting that m is significantly greater than both p and the angular frequency (w). By factoring out m^2 from the square root, the energy expression simplifies to E = m + w(n + 1/2). However, this leads to a discrepancy with the expected form E = p^2/2m + w(n + 1/2). The discussion emphasizes the importance of not setting p to zero prematurely, as it obscures the dependency on momentum. Understanding these transformations is crucial for accurately deriving energy expressions in quantum mechanics.
desperate_student
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Homework Statement
In the relativistic landau energy spectrum for a particle in a magnetic field, how does the m^2 term simplify down to p^2/2m in the non-relativistic limit?
Relevant Equations
Non-Relativistic: E=p^2/2m +w(n+1/2), n=0,1,2....
Relativistic: E= sqrt(p^2 +m^2+2mw(n+1/2)) n=0,1,2....
At non-relativistic limit, m>>p so let p=0
At non-relativistic limit m>>w,
So factorise out m^2 from the square root to get:
m*sqrt(1+2w(n+1/2)/m)
Taylor expansion identity for sqrt(1+x) for small x gives:
E=m+w(n+1/2) but it should equal E=p^2/2m +w(n+1/2), so how does m transform into p^2/2m?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
desperate_student said:
At non-relativistic limit, m>>p so let p=0
If you set p=0, it should be obvious that you will not get an equation that depends on p. So try it again without doing that.
 
Thread 'Help with Time-Independent Perturbation Theory "Good" States Proof'
(Disclaimer: this is not a HW question. I am self-studying, and this felt like the type of question I've seen in this forum. If there is somewhere better for me to share this doubt, please let me know and I'll transfer it right away.) I am currently reviewing Chapter 7 of Introduction to QM by Griffiths. I have been stuck for an hour or so trying to understand the last paragraph of this proof (pls check the attached file). It claims that we can express Ψ_{γ}(0) as a linear combination of...
Back
Top