Relativistic correction of Schrödinger equation

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the relativistic correction of the Schrödinger equation for a free particle, specifically examining whether a proposed wave function solution is valid. Participants explore the implications of the correction and the relationships between energy, momentum, and wave function parameters.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Marius presents a proposed solution, ##\Psi(x,t) = e^{i(kx-\omega t)}##, and attempts to prove it is not a solution to the relativistic corrected Schrödinger equation.
  • Some participants express skepticism about the validity of the relationship ##k = (2mE)^{1/2}/ \hbar##, suggesting it relies on non-relativistic assumptions.
  • Another participant questions the use of the relationship ##E = \hbar \omega## in the context of the proposed solution.
  • One participant calculates the Fourier transform of the equation, noting that a solution should include an ##\omega## term, which raises further doubts about the proposed solution.
  • Marius concludes that the expression for ##k## was provided by his professor and considers the possibility of a misunderstanding in the assignment's requirements.
  • A suggestion is made to apply perturbation theory to analyze the problem further.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the validity of the proposed solution or the assumptions underlying the relationships used. Multiple competing views remain regarding the correctness of the derivations and the implications of the relativistic correction.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved assumptions regarding the definitions of terms and the applicability of non-relativistic relationships in the context of the relativistic correction. The discussion reflects uncertainty about the correctness of the proposed solution and its implications for free particles.

Jonsson
Messages
78
Reaction score
0
Hello there,

I've been given the relativistic correction of the Schrödinger equation for a free particle:

$$
- \frac{\hbar^2}{2m} \frac{\partial ^2\Psi}{\partial x^2} - \frac{\hbar^4}{8m^3c^2} \frac{\partial ^4\Psi}{\partial x^4} + E_0 \Psi = i \hbar \frac{\partial \Psi}{\partial t}
$$

How we derived this correction is not important. It is important to note that ##E_0 = mc^2##. I am asked to prove that ##\Psi(x,t) = e^{i(kx-\omega t)}## with ##k = (2mE)^{1/2}/ \hbar## is a solution. We have also been given that this is the same ##\Psi## as is the solution of the ordinary Schrödinger equation for free particle

The problem is that I think I can prove that this is not a solution, which is controversial, because it contradicts what my professor is asking. I want to show you my proof before I present it to him, in case I made some silly mistake. Can you please scrutinize it?

We assume for contradiction that ##\Psi(x,t) = e^{i(kx-\omega t)}## is a solution. We try by inserting ##\Psi## into the equation. We get:
$$
\frac{\hbar^2 k^2}{2m} \Psi - \frac{\hbar^4k^4}{8m^3c^2} \Psi + E_0\Psi = \hbar \omega \Psi.
$$
Since ##k = (2mE)^{1/2}/ \hbar##, that implies ##E = \hbar^2 k^2/(2m)## which by using de Broglie identity ##E=\hbar \omega## we deduce that ##\hbar^2 k^2/(2m)##. Inserting this into the above equation, we obtain
$$
\hbar \omega \Psi - \frac{\hbar^2 \omega^2}{2mc^2} \Psi + E_0\Psi = \hbar \omega \Psi \implies \frac{\hbar^2 \omega^2}{2mc^2} \Psi = mc^2 \Psi \implies E^2 = 2 (mc^2)^2 = 2 E_0^2
$$
That means for all free particles which are described by ##\Psi## we have:
$$
2^{1/2} = \frac{E}{E_0} = \gamma,
$$
which means that ##\gamma## is equal to root two, a constant, which is impossibly correct for all free particles described by ##\Psi##.

Are you able to find mistakes in the above which destroys the argument? What are your views? Thank you for your time.

Kind regards,
Marius
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Jonsson said:
with ##k=(2mE)^{1/2}/ \hbar##


I'm suspicious of this, because it's based on the non-relativistic relationship between momentum and kinetic energy.
 
Hello jtbell, thanks for your response. Are you able to define the word «suspicious»?

Thank you for your time
 
I'm suspicious of the E=hbar omega part.
 
Hello Marius,

I'm also suspicious that ##k = (2mE)^{1/2}/ \hbar## is a solution.

If I've figured correctly, the Fourier transform of your given equation is ##\frac{\hbar^4}{8m^3c^2}k^4 - \frac{\hbar^2}{2m}k^2 - E_0 = -\hbar \omega##

Doesn't a solution need an ##\omega## term also?
 
Thanks guys. It is obviously non-relativistic. But that doesn't matter. Why? The expression I used for ##k## is given to me implicitly by my professor, so the mistake is on his behalf (phew). So it doesn't matter. I will present this proof to him after I have worked out what he is really after. Meanwhile, I will have to find another interpretation of the assignment. Thank you for your time.
 
Last edited:
One thing you can do is to apply the second term as a (1st order) perturbation on the Hamiltonian and then use perturbation theory to work everything out.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K