Statistical Mixture of N States in the Hartree-method.

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the formulation of the density matrix in the context of the Hartree model of interacting electrons, particularly focusing on the representation of a statistical mixture of states. Participants explore the implications of using a one-particle density matrix derived from a multi-particle wave function, addressing both theoretical and practical aspects of the Hartree and Hartree-Fock methods.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions how to derive the one-particle density matrix from the Hartree model, noting that the assumption of indistinguishable particles may influence the probabilities assigned to states.
  • Another participant suggests using a Slater Determinant to account for the exclusion principle, indicating a connection to Hartree-Fock theory.
  • A different viewpoint is presented regarding the nature of the density matrix, suggesting that it can represent an ensemble of particles and that there is no fundamental difference between a density matrix for a single particle in a fixed state and one for many particles in the same state.
  • One participant expresses skepticism about the physicality of the Hartree-Fock procedure, emphasizing the challenge of solving many-body problems with interactions.
  • Another participant elaborates on the use of density matrices in many-particle systems, explaining how they can be constructed even when all particles are in the same state.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the validity and physical interpretation of the density matrix in the context of many-body systems. There is no consensus on the best approach to derive the density matrix or on the implications of using the Hartree versus Hartree-Fock methods.

Contextual Notes

Participants note limitations in solving many-body problems, particularly with interactions, and discuss the implications of using average potentials in the Hartree-Fock approach. The discussion reflects varying interpretations of the density matrix and its applications.

Jezuz
Messages
29
Reaction score
0
In the Hartree model of interacting electrons one assumes that the wave function is in the form
[tex]\Psi(x_1, x_2, ..., x_N,t) = \psi_1(x_1,t) \psi_2(x_2, t) ... \psi_N(x_N,t)[/tex]
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
[tex]\rho(x,y) = \sum_{i=1}^N p_i \psi_i^*(x) \psi_i(y)[/tex]
where [tex]p_i[/tex] 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 [tex]N-1[/tex] particles) then I can guess that the result would be similar to this, but then I think that the probabilites would be [tex]1/N[/tex].

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?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It is iteration method, see in: P. Ring, P. Schuck: The nuclear Many-Body Problem, Springer Verlag, New York 1980. Really good book!
 
Thx for the tips!
 
If memory serves me corectly, use a Slater Determinant for the wave function and it take care of the Exlusion Principle.
 
Yes, the exclusion principle can be accounted for. It is called Hartree-Fock theory, but I don not need do consider the antisymmetry for the moment.

The thing is that I don't understand how they get the density matrix. Usually, if you have a distribution for different states that a particle may have [tex]\{ \psi_i(x) \}[/tex] with probabilities [tex]p_i[/tex] then the density matrix is
defined as the one above.

However, I am dealing with many particles, but the density matrix is a one-particle density matrix. (?)
 
Jezuz said:
However, I am dealing with many particles, but the density matrix is a one-particle density matrix. (?)

1. As You probably know it is impossible to solve many-body (more than 4) with interactions. That's why HF procedure leads to one-body problem i.e. many particles (but without interactions between them) embeded into ,,avarage" potential. You can then treat particle as if it has no neighbour. HF procedure works, but in my opinion is not physical.
2. If memory serves me corectly, old interpretation of density matrix is that it represents ensemble of particles. It is no difference between density matrix which represents one particle in fixed state and density matrix which represents many particles, all in the same state! (see: Feynmann, ,,Statistical Mechanics")
 
Hmm, the reason to introduce the density matrix is allways to allow for a statistical distribution of states. In some cases however you may use the single or two-particle density matrix when doing calculations on a many-particle system.

The density matrix for a particle in a fixed state [tex]\psi[/tex] is
[tex]\rho = \left| \psi \right> \left< \psi \right|[/tex]

and the density matrix for a many particle system where the particles are all in the same state (and hence has to be bosons) is given by
[tex]\rho = \left| \psi \right> \left< \psi \right| \otimes \left| \psi \right> \left< \psi \right| \otimes \dots \otimes \left| \psi \right> \left< \psi \right|[/tex],
so apparently there is a difference. However, since all particles are in the same state you can trace out all particles but one som the single particle density matrix above can be used.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
13K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
3K
Replies
7
Views
3K