QM: Time-Varying Forces & Potential Energy

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter quasar987
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Forces Time
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the implications of time-varying forces and potential energy in quantum mechanics, particularly in the context of particles subjected to time-dependent electric fields. Participants explore the relationship between potential energy, Hamiltonians, and the representation of forces in quantum systems.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant notes that not all forces can be represented by potential energy, questioning how quantum mechanics addresses particles in time-varying electric fields.
  • Another participant mentions that time-varying potentials lead to state transitions described by perturbation theory.
  • A different viewpoint suggests using vector potentials to describe electric fields, highlighting the relationship between electric and magnetic fields through vector potential and scalar potential.
  • Concerns are raised about the implications of non-Hermitian potential energies on wave function normalization.
  • One participant emphasizes that the Schrödinger equation (S.E.) in its fundamental form cannot accommodate all situations, particularly in electromagnetic contexts, and discusses the role of gauge invariance in quantum mechanics.
  • It is suggested that at a fundamental level, only conservative systems are relevant in quantum mechanics.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the representation of forces and potentials in quantum mechanics, particularly regarding the use of vector potentials and the implications of non-Hermitian potentials. There is no consensus on how to approach the problem of time-varying forces.

Contextual Notes

Participants mention gauge freedom and its implications for the uniqueness of potentials in electromagnetic theory, indicating a complex relationship between classical and quantum descriptions. The discussion also touches on the limitations of the Schrödinger equation in certain scenarios.

quasar987
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
Messages
4,796
Reaction score
32
The SE is written in terms of a potential energy. It says, "given a particle in a region where the potential is V(,x,y,z), solve me if you want to know the probability density."

But not all forces can be represented by a potential energy. What does QM says, for exemple in the case of a particle in a time varying electric field?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Time varying potentials induce transitions among states on the time independent hamiltonian. That's what we have perturbation theory for.

Daniel.
 
In the case of a time-varying electric field, you would probably have to use the vector potential stuff as

[tex] \vec{E} = -\frac{1}{c} \frac{\partial \vec{A}}{\partial t} - \nabla \varphi[/tex]
[tex] \vec{B} = \nabla \times \vec{A}[/tex]

and then choose your vector potential accordingly.

edit: It's also interesting to note what happens if, say, your potential energy is not Hermitian. I recommend you explore that exercise a bit, as you get some interesting results regarding the normalization of the wave function. Also, it's important to note that most non-conservative forces (such as friction) are macroscopic, and, as far as I know, have no quantum analogs.
 
Last edited:
But the potential in the SE is a scalar potential. What would you do with [itex]\vec{A}[/itex]?
 
The S.E. in 'fundamental form' is [tex]i\hbar \frac{\partial}{\partial t}|\Psi\rangle = H|\Psi\rangle[/tex].
You should always get H from the classical Hamiltonian. The S.E. you wrote down cannot accommodate for all situations.

In EM, the conjugate momentum [itex]\vec p[/itex] of the position [itex]\vec r[/itex] is not [itex]m\vec v[/itex] but:
[tex]\vec p = m\vec v+q\vec A[/tex], and your Hamiltonian becomes:

[tex]H=\frac{1}{2m}\left(\vec p-q\vec A)^2+qU[/tex]
where U and A are the potentials. The important thing is that they satisfy:

[tex]\vec E = -\vec \nabla U - \frac{\partial}{\partial t}\vec A[/tex]
[tex]\vec B = \vec \nabla \times \vec A[/tex]

(U and A are not unique. You have so-called gauge freedom. Different gauges will lead to the same physical results in EM and QM ofcourse. This is called gauge invariance).


By the way. At a fundamental level (microscopic scale), only conservative systems play a role anyway.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • · Replies 61 ·
3
Replies
61
Views
5K