Quantum motion of a charged particle in a magnetic field

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on formulating the Hamiltonian for a charged particle in a magnetic field, emphasizing the need for the magnetic field or vector potential to proceed. The potential U(r) is clarified to replace the term qφ, but confusion arises regarding the specifics of the magnetic field and vector potential. The professor provides a detailed Hamiltonian expression, including components for both two-dimensional and three-dimensional motion, and discusses the angular momentum operator. The participant seeks guidance on using the wave function to find eigenenergies, questioning whether the standard eigenvalue equation can still be applied in this context. The conversation highlights the importance of clear definitions and parameters in quantum mechanics problems.
EightBells
Messages
9
Reaction score
1
Homework Statement
Find eigenenergies for a charged particle in magnetic field B and in a parabolic central potential, ##U(r) = \frac {kr^2} 2##. The particle has mass m and charge q.
Relevant Equations
Hamiltonian for charged particle in magnetic field ##H = \frac 1 {2m} \left( p- \frac {qA} {c^2} \right)^2 +q \phi##
Once I know the Hamiltonian, I know to take the determinant ##\left| \vec H-\lambda \vec I \right| = 0 ## and solve for ##\lambda## which are the eigenvalues/eigenenergies.

My problem is, I'm unsure how to formulate the Hamiltonian. Is my potential ##U(r)## my scalar field ##\phi##? I've seen equations relating B and E fields to the scalar and vector fields, ##\vec B = \nabla {} \times \vec A## and ##\vec E = -\nabla \phi - \frac 1 c \frac {d \vec A} {dt}##, but I'm not sure how to incorporate them or if I even need to.

Do I need an equation for the vector potential ##\vec A##? What is the momentum ##p## in this case?

Thanks!
 
  • Like
Likes Delta2
Physics news on Phys.org
First, ##U(r)## replaces the ##q\phi##.

Now, my issue with your problem is that you are not giving us the actual magnetic field (or the vector potential). Without that the problem is ill stated and nothing can be done about it. It is an static, uniform Magnetic field?
 
  • Like
Likes Delta2
andresB said:
First, ##U(r)## replaces the ##q\phi##.

Now, my issue with your problem is that you are not giving us the actual magnetic field (or the vector potential). Without that the problem is ill stated and nothing can be done about it. It is an static, uniform Magnetic field?

That's all the information provided, however the professor has since posted additional notes:

##\vec A = \left( \frac {By} 2 ; \frac {-Bx} 2 ; 0 \right)##
##H = H_{2d} + H_z##, the writing isn't entirely clear so I'm unsure if the "2d" subscript is correct, however ##H_z = \frac {p_z^2} {2m} + \frac {kz^2} {2}## and ##H_{2d} = \frac {\hbar^2} {2m} \left[ \left( -i \frac {\partial} {\partial x} - \frac q {c\hbar} \frac {By} 2 \right)^2 + \left( -i \frac {\partial} {\partial y}+ \frac q {c\hbar} \frac {Bx} 2 \right)^2 \right] + \frac {k(x^2+y^2)} 2##.

From there I find ##H = \frac {\hbar^2} {2m} \left[ \left( -i \frac {\partial} {\partial x} - \frac q {c\hbar} \frac {By} 2 \right)^2 + \left( -i \frac {\partial} {\partial y}+ \frac q {c\hbar} \frac {Bx} 2 \right)^2 + \left( -i \frac {\partial} {\partial z} \right)^2 \right] + \frac {k(x^2+y^2+z^2)} 2##

The professor however finds some expression ## - \frac {\hbar^2} {2m} \frac {\partial^2} {\partial r^2} + \left[ \frac {\hbar^2} 2 \left( \frac {B^2} {4mc^2} + 1 \right) \left(x^2+y^2 \right) \right] + \frac {\hbar^2} {2m} \frac {qB} {c \hbar} \vec l_z## where ##\vec l_z = x \frac {\partial} {\partial y} - y \frac {\partial} {\partial x}## is the angular momentum along the z-axis. We then look for wave functions ##\Psi = e^{i {\varphi} {l_z}} \varphi(r)## and ##l_z = 0, \pm 1, \pm 2## and ##\phi(r)## is the radial component.

I'm used to finding eigenenergies in matrix form using ##|\vec H - E \vec I| = 0##, however given a wave function could I still use ##H |\Psi \rangle = E |\Psi \rangle## and work through the partial derivatives of ##H \Psi## to solve for the eigenenergies E? How do I find the appropriate wave function to use then?
 
andresB said:
First, ##U(r)## replaces the ##q\phi##.

Now, my issue with your problem is that you are not giving us the actual magnetic field (or the vector potential). Without that the problem is ill stated and nothing can be done about it. It is an static, uniform Magnetic field?
\vec{A} = \approx\frac{\vec{B}\times\vec{r}}{2}
I can never remember what the sign is...
 
  • Like
Likes EightBells
Thread 'Help with Time-Independent Perturbation Theory "Good" States Proof'
(Disclaimer: this is not a HW question. I am self-studying, and this felt like the type of question I've seen in this forum. If there is somewhere better for me to share this doubt, please let me know and I'll transfer it right away.) I am currently reviewing Chapter 7 of Introduction to QM by Griffiths. I have been stuck for an hour or so trying to understand the last paragraph of this proof (pls check the attached file). It claims that we can express Ψ_{γ}(0) as a linear combination of...
Back
Top