QM Definition of Center of Mass

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the definition and implications of the center of mass in quantum mechanics (QM), particularly in the context of diatomic molecules and two-particle systems. Participants explore how the center of mass is represented within the framework of QM, including its mathematical formulation and its role in the Schrödinger equation.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants note that the center of mass position can be treated as an operator in QM, similar to the position of a single particle.
  • One participant explains that for a two-particle system, the center of mass can be expressed as (m1r1 + m2r2)/(m1 + m2), with r1 and r2 being promoted to operators in QM.
  • It is mentioned that the Schrödinger equation can be reformulated using the center of mass and relative displacement variables, R and r, which allows for separation of the equation into parts describing center of mass motion and relative motion.
  • A participant questions the definition of the center of mass variable R, suggesting it should be defined differently, leading to a correction from another participant.
  • Another participant introduces the idea of a unitary transformation that separates the two-particle system into a plane wave in R with conserved total momentum.
  • One participant raises a conceptual question about the center of mass of macroscopic objects, suggesting the possibility of overlapping centers of mass in certain configurations.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express varying interpretations of the center of mass in QM, with some agreeing on its operator status and mathematical formulation, while others question specific definitions and implications. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the broader conceptual implications of center of mass in macroscopic contexts.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved aspects regarding the definitions and assumptions related to the center of mass, particularly in the context of macroscopic objects and overlapping centers of mass.

LarryS
Gold Member
Messages
361
Reaction score
34
The concept of "Center of Mass" is mentioned often in QM literature. I saw one blurb stating that a diatomic molecule could be represented as a SHO vibrating about the "center of mass" between the two atoms. But is there a precise definition of center of mass in QM based solely on the state function? Thanks in advance.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The center of mass position is an operator just like the position of a single particle. For example if you have two particles, the center of mass is (m1r1 + m2r2)/(m1 + m2) where in QM r1 and r2 get promoted to operators.

The "blurb" you mention is referring to this situation: If you have a two-particle system you could write the Schrödinger equation in terms of the positions r1 and r2 of the two particles. But you could also write it in terms of the variables R = (r1 + r2)/2 [the center of mass] and r = (r1 - r2) [the relative displacement of the two particles]. If the potential energy V is simply a function of the distance between the two particles, then the Schrödinger equation separates into two parts. One part involves only R, and describes the motion of the center of mass; this part of the equation looks like the Schrödinger equation for a single free particle of mass (m1 + m2). The other part of the equation involves only r and describes the relative motion of the two particles; this part looks like the Schrödinger equation for a single particle with mass m1m2/(m1 + m2) in a potential V. So this is useful because two-particle systems with an inter-particle potential turn out to look just like one particle in an external potential (plus the free-particle-like propagation of the center of mass).
 
The_Duck said:
The center of mass position is an operator just like the position of a single particle. For example if you have two particles, the center of mass is (m1r1 + m2r2)/(m1 + m2) where in QM r1 and r2 get promoted to operators.

The "blurb" you mention is referring to this situation: If you have a two-particle system you could write the Schrödinger equation in terms of the positions r1 and r2 of the two particles. But you could also write it in terms of the variables R = (r1 + r2)/2 [the center of mass] and r = (r1 - r2) [the relative displacement of the two particles]. If the potential energy V is simply a function of the distance between the two particles, then the Schrödinger equation separates into two parts. One part involves only R, and describes the motion of the center of mass; this part of the equation looks like the Schrödinger equation for a single free particle of mass (m1 + m2). The other part of the equation involves only r and describes the relative motion of the two particles; this part looks like the Schrödinger equation for a single particle with mass m1m2/(m1 + m2) in a potential V. So this is useful because two-particle systems with an inter-particle potential turn out to look just like one particle in an external potential (plus the free-particle-like propagation of the center of mass).

Makes sense. But shouldn't your "R" variable be defined as R = (m1r1 + m2r2)/(m1 + m2) instead of R = (r1 + r2)/2?
 
Oops, yes, it should.
 
one can even start with the two variables r1, r2 and find a unitary transformation to r, R where P separates i.e. where the two-particle system becomes a plane wave in R with conserved total momentum P as it should.
 
When you speak of a macroscopic objects position, we are really stating its center of mass?

Say the dot is the center of mass location, and the arrows the rest of the object spanning from that location:
<-- . -->
Can't you have another center of mass located where the <-- -->'s are located? So two macroscopic objects are overlapping?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
6K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
9K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
8K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 69 ·
3
Replies
69
Views
8K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K