Problem about dot product in probability density problem

In summary: The first line should be:\left( -i\nabla - \mathbf A \right)^2 \psi = \left( -i\nabla - \mathbf A \right) \cdot \left( -i\nabla - \mathbf A \right) \psiThe first line should be:\left( -i\nabla - \mathbf A \right)^2 \psi = \left( -i\nabla - \mathbf A \right) \cdot \left( -i\nabla - \math
  • #1
Another
104
5
Homework Statement
probability density in magnetic field
Relevant Equations
## ∇ ⋅ (fg) = ∇f ⋅g + f(∇ ⋅ g) ##
prpblemm11.png

I don't understand why ?
## \Psi ∇ ⋅ (A \Psi^ *) + \Psi ^* ∇ ⋅ (A \Psi ) = 2 ∇ ⋅(A \Psi ^* \Psi) ##
form
## ∇ ⋅ (fg) = ∇f ⋅ g + f(∇ ⋅ g) ##
Attempt at a Solution
## \Psi ∇ ⋅ (A \Psi^ *) + \Psi ^* ∇ ⋅ (A \Psi ) = 2 ∇ ⋅ (A \Psi ^* \Psi) - ∇\Psi ^* ⋅ A\Psi - ∇\Psi ⋅ (A\Psi ^*) ##
 
  • Like
Likes Delta2
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Another said:
Could you clarify the difference in meaning of "##A##" and "A" (going from lines 1 and 2, to line 3, in your attachment)? It looks like a scalar has changed to a vector.
 
  • #3
Steve4Physics said:
Could you clarify the difference in meaning of "##A##" and "A" (going from lines 1 and 2, to line 3, in your attachment)? It looks like a scalar has changed to a vector.
this is full solution
http://www.physics.drexel.edu/~pgautam/wf/PHYS517/PHYS517HW1.pdf
You can see this problem in problem 2b in above link

I think ##A## is modulus of vector potential ##A = \sqrt(A^2)## and A is a vector quantities of vector potential vector A = A_x i + A_y j + A_zk
 
  • #4
Another said:
this is full solution
http://www.physics.drexel.edu/~pgautam/wf/PHYS517/PHYS517HW1.pdf
You can see this problem in problem 2b in above link

I think ##A## is modulus of vector potential ##A = \sqrt(A^2)## and A is a vector quantities of vector potential vector A = A_x i + A_y j + A_zk
I can’t answer your question but will note the following.

Going from line 2 to line 3 (in your Post #1 attachment) it appears that the scalar "##A##" (let’s assume it's the magnitude of A) magically changes to the vector A. If this is correct, it then raises the question: where did the additional information needed for A’s direction come from?

This makes no sense to me at all. My naturally cynical and suspicious nature makes me think it's an incorrect 'bodge' which accidentally works. But I'm no vector calculus expert and am more than happy to be corrected!

You might get more help if you posted in the “Advanced Physics Homework Help Forum” rather than here (the introductory forum).
 
  • Like
Likes Delta2
  • #5
If f and g are Scalars then:
##\nabla.(gf) ## has no meaning! One of them should be a vector. Further, in the attachment you provided in post #2, I found a lot of typos. Also, are you using any assumption for example: Coloumb Gauge(This problem can be solved without even assuming that gauge)?
 
  • Like
Likes Delta2
  • #6
Another said:
I don't understand why ?
## \Psi ∇ ⋅ (A \Psi^ *) + \Psi ^* ∇ ⋅ (A \Psi ) = 2 ∇ ⋅(A \Psi ^* \Psi) ##
This equation is not correct.

As @Abhishek11235 noted, there are several errors in the printed solutions. All of the ##A##'s should be boldface except for the terms with ##A^2##.

Here are the errors I found in the first few lines of the solutions:

1607314310392.png


In the next to last line, I've underlined a term in green. It's important to note that the divergence operator in this term acts on ##\mathbf A \psi## and not just on ##\mathbf A ##. So, you can see that the original solution is missing a term in the last line, which I underlined in yellow in the corrected version.

Similar corrections occur for the conjugated equation. With these corrections, you should be able to eventually get the desired result for ##\mathbf j##.
 
  • Like
Likes JD_PM, PhDeezNutz, Steve4Physics and 2 others
  • #7
@TSny i don't think we should add that term that is underlined in yellow. The term ##\nabla\cdot (\mathbf{A}\psi)## contains it because it is $$\nabla\cdot (\mathbf{A}\psi)=(\nabla\cdot \mathbf{A}) \psi+\mathbf{A}\cdot\nabla\psi$$ .
 
  • #8
Delta2 said:
@TSny i don't think we should add that term that is underlined in yellow. The term ##\nabla\cdot (\mathbf{A}\psi)## contains it because it is $$\nabla\cdot (\mathbf{A}\psi)=(\nabla\cdot \mathbf{A}) \psi+\mathbf{A}\cdot\nabla\psi$$ .
Leaving out the messy constants, I find $$\left( -i\nabla - \mathbf A \right)^2 \psi = \left( -i\nabla - \mathbf A \right) \cdot \left( -i\nabla - \mathbf A \right) \psi = \left( -i\nabla - \mathbf A \right) \cdot \left( -i\nabla \psi -( \mathbf A \psi) \right)$$ $$= -\nabla^2 \psi + i\nabla \cdot (\mathbf A \psi)+ i \mathbf A \cdot \nabla \psi + A^2 \psi$$ $$= -\nabla^2 \psi + i(\nabla \cdot \mathbf A )\psi+2 i \mathbf A \cdot \nabla \psi + A^2 \psi$$
 
  • #9
TSny said:
Leaving out the messy constants, I find $$\left( -i\nabla - \mathbf A \right)^2 \psi = \left( -i\nabla - \mathbf A \right) \cdot \left( -i\nabla - \mathbf A \right) \psi = \left( -i\nabla - \mathbf A \right) \cdot \left( -i\nabla \psi -( \mathbf A \psi) \right)$$ $$= -\nabla^2 \psi + i\nabla \cdot (\mathbf A \psi)+ i \mathbf A \cdot \nabla \psi + A^2 \psi$$ $$= -\nabla^2 \psi + i(\nabla \cdot \mathbf A )\psi+2 i \mathbf A \cdot \nabla \psi + A^2 \psi$$
I have my doubts about the first line, cause instead of calculating the square of the operator directly, you first apply the operator to the function ##\psi##, i just don't think your first equality is correct but i am not sure i might be wrong as well.
 
  • #10
My result is close to the one mentioned in the OP but off by a factor of 2 maybe someone can spot my error (assuming the rest of my approach is right)

LaTeX plugin messed up so here's a picture of my work. Again I’m off by a factor of 2 somewhere.

F2EE0090-EB79-409C-9BCF-65737673488C.jpeg
 
  • #11
If we keep the yellow-underlined term in post #6, we have
1607359603690.png

We are interested in the middle two terms. Since they have a common factor of ##\frac{e}{2mc}##, I will leave out this factor for now. So, we want to consider $$\nabla \cdot (\mathbf A \psi) + \mathbf A \cdot \nabla \psi$$ which may be written as $$ (\nabla \cdot \mathbf A) \psi+2\mathbf A \cdot \nabla \psi \,\,\,\,\,\,\,\, (1)$$

Similarly, the equation for ##\large \frac{\partial \psi^*}{\partial t}##, will yield $$ (\nabla \cdot \mathbf A) \psi^*+2\mathbf A \cdot \nabla \psi^* \,\,\,\,\,\,\,\, (2)$$

Multiply (1) by ##\psi^*##, (2) by ##\psi##, and add $$\psi^* \left[( \nabla \cdot \mathbf A) \psi+2\mathbf A \cdot \nabla \psi \right] + \psi \left[( \nabla \cdot \mathbf A) \psi^*+2\mathbf A \cdot \nabla \psi^* \right]$$ $$=2(\nabla \cdot \mathbf A) |\psi|^2 + 2\psi^* \mathbf A \cdot \nabla \psi + 2\psi \mathbf A \cdot \nabla \psi^*$$ $$=2\left[ (\nabla \cdot \mathbf A) |\psi|^2 + \mathbf A \cdot \nabla(\psi^*\psi)\right] = 2\nabla \cdot (\mathbf A |\psi|^2)$$ Putting back the factor ##\frac{e}{2mc}##, gives $$\nabla \cdot \left ( \frac{e}{mc}\mathbf A |\psi|^2 \right)$$ This is what we want for one of the terms of ##\mathbf j##.
 
  • Like
Likes Abhishek11235
  • #12
PhDeezNutz said:
My result is close to the one mentioned in the OP but off by a factor of 2 maybe someone can spot my error (assuming the rest of my approach is right)
You obtained
1607364459639.png


This may be written as ##\,\,\, 2 \nabla \cdot (|\psi|^2 \mathbf A) - \mathbf A \cdot \nabla |\psi|^2##

The first term is what we want. The second term ends up being canceled by the yellow-underlined term in post #6 (and the corresponding term in the ##\psi^*## equation).
 
  • Like
Likes PhDeezNutz
  • #13
Delta2 said:
I have my doubts about the first line, cause instead of calculating the square of the operator directly, you first apply the operator to the function ##\psi##, i just don't think your first equality is correct but i am not sure i might be wrong as well.
What @TSny did is correct. In fact, it's a good way to do the calculation when you're not sure you're doing it correctly.

A similar situation comes up when you calculate the commutator of ##\hat x## and ##\hat p##. If you make the same mistake, you get this:
\begin{align*}
[\hat x,\hat p] &= x\left(\frac \hbar i \frac \partial {\partial x}\right) - \left(\frac \hbar i \frac \partial {\partial x}\right)x \\
&= -i\hbar \left( x \frac \partial {\partial x} - \frac\partial {\partial x}x \right) \\
&= -i \hbar \left( x \frac \partial {\partial x} - 1\right)
\end{align*} The error arises because the derivative in the second term doesn't act on just ##x## but on everything to the right of it, including the implied function the commutator acts on.

If you throw in a test function ##f##, then it's easy to see how it's supposed to work out:
\begin{align*}
[\hat x,\hat p]f &= x\left(\frac \hbar i \frac \partial {\partial x}\right)f - \left(\frac \hbar i \frac \partial {\partial x}\right)xf \\
&= -i\hbar \left( x \frac {\partial f} {\partial x} - \frac\partial {\partial x}xf \right) \\
&= -i\hbar \left( x \frac {\partial f} {\partial x} - f - x\frac {\partial f} {\partial x} \right) \\
&= i\hbar f
\end{align*}
 
  • Like
Likes Delta2 and TSny

1. What is the dot product in probability density problems?

The dot product, also known as the inner product, is a mathematical operation that takes two vectors and produces a scalar value. In probability density problems, the dot product is used to calculate the similarity between two probability density functions.

2. How is the dot product used in probability density problems?

The dot product is used in probability density problems to determine the similarity between two probability density functions. It is calculated by multiplying the corresponding values of the two functions and then summing them together.

3. Why is the dot product important in probability density problems?

The dot product is important in probability density problems because it allows us to quantify the similarity between two probability density functions. This is useful in various statistical analyses, such as determining the correlation between two variables.

4. Can the dot product be negative in probability density problems?

Yes, the dot product can be negative in probability density problems. This indicates that the two probability density functions are dissimilar or have opposite trends.

5. Are there any limitations to using the dot product in probability density problems?

One limitation of using the dot product in probability density problems is that it assumes the two functions have the same domain. If the functions have different domains, the dot product may not accurately represent their similarity. Additionally, the dot product may not be a suitable measure of similarity for highly skewed or multi-modal probability density functions.

Similar threads

  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
0
Views
660
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
4
Views
946
Replies
16
Views
548
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
792
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
3
Replies
95
Views
5K
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
2
Views
957
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
30
Views
1K
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
6
Views
1K
Back
Top