Path integral for a particle coupled to a magnetic field

IRobot
Messages
86
Reaction score
0
Hi all,

I am currently having trouble with an exercise: writing the propagator of a particle coupled to a magnetic field.

So the lagrangian is L_A (\vec{x},\dot{\vec{x}}^2) = \frac{m}{2}\dot{\vec{x}} + e\vec{A}.\dot{\vec{x}}
And it says that I should solve it in two different ways:
-by writing e\vec{A}.\dot{\vec{x}} has a derivative relative to t
-by completing the square in the Lagrangian, ie something like L_A (\vec{x},\dot{\vec{x}}) = \frac{m}{2}(\dot{\vec{x}}+\frac{e}{m}\vec{A})^2 - \frac{e^2}{2m}\vec{A}^2 I guess.

But still, I develop a few lines more of calculus but I am stuck. I would be really happy if someone could explain how to proceed.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
I think I'm going to try and solve this with you :)

I can't do it tonight cause I have a test tomorrow that I have to study for, but this looks cool and full of learning.

let me get this straight we have
<br /> L=\frac{m}{2}\dot{x}^{2}_{i} +eA_j \dot{x}_j<br />
and we should put this in two different forms:
<br /> L=\frac{1}{2m}(m\dot{x}_j+e A_i )^2-e^2 A_{i}^2<br />
and
<br /> L=\frac{m}{2}\dot{x}_{i}^2-e\dot{A}_j x_j +e\frac{\partial}{\partial t}(A_i x_i)<br />
Do those look ok to you?
 
Yes, it does look good. But in the second lagrangian, because we don't want to have an electrical field, we have \dot{\vec{A}}=0 so the second terms vanishes.
 
Last edited:
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In her YouTube video Bell’s Theorem Experiments on Entangled Photons, Dr. Fugate shows how polarization-entangled photons violate Bell’s inequality. In this Insight, I will use quantum information theory to explain why such entangled photon-polarization qubits violate the version of Bell’s inequality due to John Clauser, Michael Horne, Abner Shimony, and Richard Holt known as the...
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...
I asked a question related to a table levitating but I am going to try to be specific about my question after one of the forum mentors stated I should make my question more specific (although I'm still not sure why one couldn't have asked if a table levitating is possible according to physics). Specifically, I am interested in knowing how much justification we have for an extreme low probability thermal fluctuation that results in a "miraculous" event compared to, say, a dice roll. Does a...
Back
Top