Undergrad Nonrelativistic limit of scalar field theory

Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on the nonrelativistic limit of the Klein-Gordon equation, demonstrating how it leads to the Schrödinger equation through a specific field redefinition. By defining a new function via ##\psi = e^{i m t} \phi##, the transformation results in an equation that approximates the Schrödinger equation under certain assumptions. However, when examining the corresponding Hamiltonian density derived from the relativistic Lagrangian, discrepancies arise, particularly in terms of units and structure. The conversation emphasizes the necessity of proper field redefinition and the application of the Legendre transform to accurately derive the nonrelativistic Hamiltonian. Ultimately, the correct scaling and adjustments reveal the expected nonrelativistic limit, aligning with the Schrödinger framework.
stevendaryl
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Insights Author
Messages
8,943
Reaction score
2,954
The Klein-Gordon equation has the Schrödinger equation as a nonrelativistic limit, in the following sense:

Start with the Klein-Gordon equation (for a complex function ##\phi##)

## \partial_\mu \partial^\mu \phi + m^2 \phi = 0##

Now, define a new function ##\psi## via: ##\psi = e^{i m t} \phi##. Then the equation for ##\psi## is:

## \ddot{\psi} -2 i m \dot{\psi} -\nabla^2 \psi = 0##

Now, if we assume that ##\ddot{\psi}## is small compared with the other terms, then we have approximately:

## -2 i m \dot{\psi} -\nabla^2 \psi = 0 \Rightarrow i \dot{\psi} = - \frac{1}{2m} \nabla^2 \psi##

That's Schrödinger's equation. So that seems to work. But now, instead of looking at equations of motion, let's look at the field theory.

The Schrödinger equation follows from a field-theoretic lagrangian density:

##\mathcal{L} = - i (\psi^* \dot{\psi} - \dot{\psi^*} \psi) - \frac{1}{2m} (\nabla \psi^*) \cdot (\nabla \psi)##

which corresponds to the hamilton density:

##\mathcal{H} = \frac{1}{2m} (\nabla \psi^*) \cdot (\nabla \psi)##

Now, what I would expect is that just as the Klein Gordon equation has the Schrödinger equation as a nonrelativistic limit, the relativistic hamiltonian density should have the appropriate nonrelativistic limit, as well. But it doesn't quite work.

A relativistic lagrangian density that yields the Klein-Gordon equation is:

##\mathcal{L} = \frac{1}{2} \dot{\phi^*} \dot{\phi} - \frac{1}{2} (\nabla \phi^*) \cdot (\nabla \phi) - \frac{m^2}{2} \phi^* \phi##

This corresponds to a Hamiltonian density (I think).

##\mathcal{H} = \frac{1}{2} \dot{\phi^*} \dot{\phi} + \frac{1}{2} (\nabla \phi^*) \cdot (\nabla \phi) + \frac{m^2}{2} \phi^* \phi##

Now, let's try the same trick: Let ##\phi = e^{-imt}\psi##. Then in terms of ##\psi##:

##\mathcal{H} = \frac{1}{2} \dot{\psi^*}\dot{\psi} + \frac{im}{2} (\psi^* \dot{\psi} - \dot{\psi^*} \dot{\psi}) + \frac{1}{2} (\nabla \psi^*) \cdot (\nabla \psi) + m^2 \psi^* \psi##

Assuming once again that the first term is negligible compared to the others gives you:

##\mathcal{H} = \frac{im}{2} (\psi^* \dot{\psi} - \dot{\psi^*} \psi) + \frac{1}{2} (\nabla \psi^*) \cdot (\nabla \psi) + m^2 \psi^* \psi##

That doesn't look anything like the nonrelativistic Hamiltonian density. It doesn't even have the right units (although I guess you could fix that by rescaling ##\psi##).
 
Physics news on Phys.org
stevendaryl said:
A relativistic lagrangian density that yields the Klein-Gordon equation is:

##\mathcal{L} = \frac{1}{2} \dot{\phi^*} \dot{\phi} - \frac{1}{2} (\nabla \phi^*) \cdot (\nabla \phi) - \frac{m^2}{2} \phi^* \phi##
Here you made one mistake by including the 1/2-factor in the complex scalar Lagrangian which has the form \mathcal{L}(\varphi , \partial \varphi) = \dot{\varphi} \dot{\varphi}^{\ast} - \nabla \varphi \cdot \nabla \varphi^{\ast} - m^{2} \varphi \varphi^{\ast} . Now, if you redefine the field according to \varphi (t , \vec{x}) = e^{- i mt} \psi (t , \vec{x}) , the new Lagrangian becomes \mathcal{L}(\psi , \dot{\psi} , \nabla \psi) = \dot{\psi}\dot{\psi}^{\ast} + I am (\dot{\psi}\psi^{\ast} - \psi \dot{\psi}^{\ast}) - \nabla \psi \cdot \nabla \psi^{\ast} . \ \ \ \ \ (1) Now, you can, if you wish, take the non-relativistic limit by ignoring the first term and dividing by 2m: \mathcal{L}_{Sch} = \frac{i}{2} (\dot{\psi}\psi^{\ast} - \psi \dot{\psi}^{\ast}) - \frac{1}{2m} \nabla \psi \cdot \nabla \psi^{\ast} . This gives you the Schrödinger field equations as well as the correct non-relativistic Hamiltonian.
##\mathcal{H} = \frac{1}{2} \dot{\phi^*} \dot{\phi} + \frac{1}{2} (\nabla \phi^*) \cdot (\nabla \phi) + \frac{m^2}{2} \phi^* \phi##

Now, let's try the same trick: Let ##\phi = e^{-imt}\psi##. Then in terms of ##\psi##:

##\mathcal{H} = \frac{1}{2} \dot{\psi^*}\dot{\psi} + \frac{im}{2} (\psi^* \dot{\psi} - \dot{\psi^*} \dot{\psi}) + \frac{1}{2} (\nabla \psi^*) \cdot (\nabla \psi) + m^2 \psi^* \psi##
Here, you made another mistake by substituting the field redefinition in the old Hamiltonian. This is not correct because field redefinition changes the conjugate momentum. So, to obtain \mathcal{H}(\psi), you need to apply the Legendre transform to \mathcal{L}(\psi) of eq(1): \frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial \dot{\psi}} = \dot{\psi}^{\ast} + I am \psi^{\ast}, \ \ \frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial \dot{\psi}^{\ast}} = \dot{\psi} - I am \psi , \mathcal{H}(\psi) = ( \dot{\psi}^{\ast} + I am \psi^{\ast}) \dot{\psi} + ( \dot{\psi} - I am \psi ) \dot{\psi}^{\ast} - \mathcal{L}(\psi) . Or \mathcal{H}(\psi) = \dot{\psi} \dot{\psi}^{\ast} + \nabla \psi \cdot \nabla \psi^{\ast} . Now, go to the non-relativistic limit and introduce the correct scaling dimension to obtain \mathcal{H}_{Sch} = \frac{1}{2m} \nabla \psi \cdot \nabla \psi^{\ast} .
 
  • Like
Likes Spinnor, dextercioby, kith and 3 others
Time reversal invariant Hamiltonians must satisfy ##[H,\Theta]=0## where ##\Theta## is time reversal operator. However, in some texts (for example see Many-body Quantum Theory in Condensed Matter Physics an introduction, HENRIK BRUUS and KARSTEN FLENSBERG, Corrected version: 14 January 2016, section 7.1.4) the time reversal invariant condition is introduced as ##H=H^*##. How these two conditions are identical?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
545
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K