Jezuz
- 29
- 0
In the Hartree model of interacting electrons one assumes that the wave function is in the form
\Psi(x_1, x_2, ..., x_N,t) = \psi_1(x_1,t) \psi_2(x_2, t) ... \psi_N(x_N,t)
which of course is a quite crude approximation since it for example does not take into account Pauli principle.
I have studied some recent articles in plasma physics which starts from this expression and then derives a fluid equation (for example, G. Manfredi, arxiv:quant-ph/0505004).
From the form above it is then claimed that this can be represented by a one-particle density matrix
\rho(x,y) = \sum_{i=1}^N p_i \psi_i^*(x) \psi_i(y)
where p_i are the "occupation probabilities".
Does anyone know how to obtain this form of the density matrix?
If one would have started with a completely anti-symmetric wave function and calculated the density matrix (by tracing over N-1 particles) then I can guess that the result would be similar to this, but then I think that the probabilites would be 1/N.
Does the form of the density matrix above possible to derive from that the particles are intdistinguishable or is it just some plausible arguments which gives the form above?
\Psi(x_1, x_2, ..., x_N,t) = \psi_1(x_1,t) \psi_2(x_2, t) ... \psi_N(x_N,t)
which of course is a quite crude approximation since it for example does not take into account Pauli principle.
I have studied some recent articles in plasma physics which starts from this expression and then derives a fluid equation (for example, G. Manfredi, arxiv:quant-ph/0505004).
From the form above it is then claimed that this can be represented by a one-particle density matrix
\rho(x,y) = \sum_{i=1}^N p_i \psi_i^*(x) \psi_i(y)
where p_i are the "occupation probabilities".
Does anyone know how to obtain this form of the density matrix?
If one would have started with a completely anti-symmetric wave function and calculated the density matrix (by tracing over N-1 particles) then I can guess that the result would be similar to this, but then I think that the probabilites would be 1/N.
Does the form of the density matrix above possible to derive from that the particles are intdistinguishable or is it just some plausible arguments which gives the form above?