Two Fourier transforms and the calculation of Effective Hamiltonian.

Robert_G
Messages
36
Reaction score
0
Hi, The following contains two questions that I encountered in the books of Claude Cohen-Tannoudji, "Atom-Photon Interactions" and "Atoms and Photons: Introduction to Quantum Electrodynamics". The first one is about how to calculate two Fourier transforms, and the second one is a example of which I have been confused about for a very long time. Since I am teaching myself the quantum mechanics, so the question are maybe easy for some of you.

1st.
The transform of
\frac{1}{4\pi r}\leftrightarrow\frac{1}{(2\pi)^{3/2}}\frac{1}{k^2}
\frac{\textbf{r}}{4 \pi r^3}\leftrightarrow\frac{1}{(2\pi)^{3/2}}\frac{-i\textbf{k}}{k^2}

e.g. the first one is ...
\frac{1}{4\pi r}=\frac{1}{(2\pi)^{3/2}}\int d^3 k \frac{1}{k^2}\exp(i\textbf{k}\cdot \textbf{r})

For years I just assumed that those two are correct, now I really want to know why.2nd
The example here is about the exchange the transverse photons between two charged particles. A pair of particles moves from state \textbf{p}_\alpha, \textbf{p}_\beta to the state \textbf{p}'_\alpha, \textbf{p}'_\beta by exchanging a transverse photon \mathbf{k}\mathbf{\epsilon}, here \alpha \beta indicate the two atoms, and \textbf{k} and \mathbf{\epsilon} are the wave vector and the polarization respectively. so the system goes from |\textbf{p}_\alpha, \textbf{p}_\beta;0\rangle to |\textbf{p}''_\alpha, \mathbf{p}''_\beta;\textbf{k}\mathbf{\epsilon}\rangle and then ends at the state |\textbf{p}'_\alpha, \textbf{p}'_\beta;0\rangle.

The effective Hamiltonian is
\langle\mathbf{p}'_\alpha, \mathbf{p}'_\beta|\delta V| \textbf{p}_\alpha, \textbf{p}_\beta\rangle=\sum_{\textbf{k}\mathbf{\epsilon}}\sum_{\textbf{p}''_\alpha \textbf{p}''_\beta}\frac{1}{2}[\frac{1}{E_p-E_{p''}-\hbar\omega}+\frac{1}{E_p'-E_{p''}-\hbar\omega}]\langle\mathbf{p}'_\alpha, \mathbf{p}'_\beta;0|H_{I1}|\mathbf{p}''_\alpha,\mathbf{p}''_\beta; \mathbf{k}\mathbf{\epsilon}\rangle \langle\mathbf{p}''_\alpha, \mathbf{p}''_\beta; \mathbf{k}\mathbf{\epsilon}|H_{I1}|\mathbf{p}_\alpha,\mathbf{p}_\beta; 0\rangle (1)
Where

H_{I1}=-\sum_\alpha \frac{q_\alpha}{m_\alpha}\mathbf{p}_\alpha \cdot \mathbf{A}(\mathbf{r}_\alpha)

\mathbf{A(\mathbf{r}_\alpha)}=\sum_j \sqrt{\frac{\hbar}{2\epsilon}\omega_j L^3}(\hat{a}\mathbf{\epsilon}_j e^{i \mathbf{k}_j\cdot\mathbf{r}_\alpha}+\hat{a}^{\dagger}\mathbf{\epsilon}_j e^{-i \mathbf{k}_j\cdot\mathbf{r}_\alpha})

According to the book, E_p-E_{p''} and E_{p'}-E_{p''} is much smaller than \hbar\omega, and the summation over \textbf{p}''_\alpha and \textbf{p}''_\alpha introduces a closure relation, the above equation is

\delta V=-\sum_{\mathbf{k}\mathbf{\epsilon}}\frac{1}{2\epsilon_0 L^3 \omega^2}\frac{q_\alpha q_\beta}{m_\alpha m_\beta}(\mathbf{\epsilon} \cdot \textbf{p}_\beta)(\mathbf{\epsilon} \cdot \textbf{p}_\beta)e^{i \mathbf{k} \cdot (\mathbf{r}_\alpha-\mathbf{r}_\beta)}+(\alpha\leftrightarrow\beta) (2)
Questions

(1) the state |\textbf{p}_\alpha, \textbf{p}_\beta;0\rangle should be consider as |\textbf{p}_\alpha\rangle \otimes|\textbf{p}_\beta\rangle \otimes|0\rangle, right?
(2) I do not know how to get (2) from (1). The following is how I proceed with the calculation: Let's disregard all the constants, and calculate only the Dirac bracket: Considering the closure relation, we have

\sum_{\mathbf{p}''_\alpha \mathbf{p}''_\beta}\langle\mathbf{p}'_\alpha, \mathbf{p}'_\beta;0|H_{I1}|\mathbf{p}''_\alpha,\mathbf{p}''_\beta; \mathbf{k}\mathbf{\epsilon}\rangle \langle\mathbf{p}''_\alpha, \mathbf{p}''_\beta; \mathbf{k}\mathbf{\epsilon}|H_{I1}|\mathbf{p}_\alpha,\mathbf{p}_\beta; 0\rangle=\langle\mathbf{p}'_\alpha, \mathbf{p}'_\beta;0|H_{I1}| \mathbf{k}\mathbf{\epsilon}\rangle \langle \mathbf{k}\mathbf{\epsilon}|H_{I1}|\mathbf{p}_\alpha,\mathbf{p}_\beta; 0\rangle

and then

=\langle\mathbf{p}'_\alpha, \mathbf{p}'_\beta;0|[\frac{q_\alpha}{m_\alpha}\mathbf{p}_\alpha \cdot \mathbf{A}(\mathbf{r}_\alpha)+\frac{q_\beta}{m_\beta}\mathbf{p}_\beta \cdot \mathbf{A}(\mathbf{r}_\beta )]| \mathbf{k}\mathbf{\epsilon}\rangle \langle \mathbf{k}\mathbf{\epsilon}|[\frac{q_\alpha}{m_\alpha}\mathbf{p}_\alpha \cdot \mathbf{A}(\mathbf{r}_\alpha)+\frac{q_\beta}{m_\beta}\mathbf{p}_\beta \cdot \mathbf{A}(\mathbf{r}_\beta )]|\mathbf{p}_\alpha,\mathbf{p}_\beta; 0\rangle (3)

Now let's focus on the second Dirac braket:

\langle \mathbf{k}\mathbf{\epsilon}|[\frac{q_\alpha}{m_\alpha}\mathbf{p}_\alpha \cdot \mathbf{A}(\mathbf{r}_\alpha)+\frac{q_\beta}{m_\beta}\mathbf{p}_\beta \cdot \mathbf{A}(\mathbf{r}_\beta )]|\mathbf{p}_\alpha,\mathbf{p}_\beta; 0\rangle

The second term of operator \textbf{A}_\alpha can transform |0\rangle into |\textbf{k}\mathbf{\epsilon}\rangle, while the first term containing \hat{a} is zero.
But, Here is the problem, \mathbf{p}_\alpha can not transform |\textbf{p}_\alpha \rangle into |\textbf{p}'_\alpha \rangle. It should be some number times |\textbf{p}_\alpha \rangle, because |\textbf{p}_\alpha \rangle is an eigenvector of operator \mathbf{p}_\alpha , So without further calculation, the total result of Eq. (3) is zero. because |\textbf{p}_\alpha \rangle and |\textbf{p}'_\alpha \rangle are orthogonal to each other.

Of course, I am wrong, but I don't know where is the mistake. Please tell me, I am so close to kill myself.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
For your first question, you get the second transform of \frac{\textbf{r}}{4 \pi r^3} by taking \nabla_r on your first relation for \frac{1}{4\pi r}.

BTW, the Fourier transform has a minus sign in exp(-ik\cdot r).
As for the first just use the fact that d^3k = k^2 \sin(\theta) d\theta d\phi dk and k\cdot r = kr cos(\theta) the limits of integration are obvious k goes from zero to infinity, theta from 0 to pi and phi from zero to 2pi.

Now because \sin(\theta)d\theta = d(\cos \theta) First integrate this integral which is from -1 to 1.
You are left with an integrand of the form: [exp(ikr)-exp(-ikr)]/(ikr) which is an integral of sinc function. I leave it to you to rearrange all the factors.
 
  • Like
Likes 1 person
MathematicalPhysicist said:
For your first question, you get the second transform of \frac{\textbf{r}}{4 \pi r^3} by taking \nabla_r on your first relation for \frac{1}{4\pi r}.

BTW, the Fourier transform has a minus sign in exp(-ik\cdot r).
As for the first just use the fact that d^3k = k^2 \sin(\theta) d\theta d\phi dk and k\cdot r = kr cos(\theta) the limits of integration are obvious k goes from zero to infinity, theta from 0 to pi and phi from zero to 2pi.

Now because \sin(\theta)d\theta = d(\cos \theta) First integrate this integral which is from -1 to 1.
You are left with an integrand of the form: [exp(ikr)-exp(-ikr)]/(ikr) which is an integral of sinc function. I leave it to you to rearrange all the factors.

thanks
 
I think one should also mention, that the Fourier transform of 1/r has to be understood as a distribution.
 
DrDu said:
I think one should also mention, that the Fourier transform of 1/r has to be understood as a distribution.

Could you please elaborate on this? Does a distribution require normalization?
 
phase

As a total layman I stumble straight into the discussion with a basic question.

Can somebody in simple words explain what is the phase in Fourier analysis. I understand it has something to do with angles. But visionary it is incomprehensible for me.
 
Discman said:
As a total layman I stumble straight into the discussion with a basic question.

Can somebody in simple words explain what is the phase in Fourier analysis. I understand it has something to do with angles. But visionary it is incomprehensible for me.

My two cents. Mathematics does not call for physical interpretation. It is based on operation and why this operation works traces back to its derivation of orthogonality and completeness. Now back to your question. I don't know what is an overall phase for Fourier analysis. But if you are asking about the exp(ik.r) prefactor, then it might have a physical meaning of planewave. In the perspective of angles as you pursue, it points everywhere onto a unit sphere from the origin point for fixed r if expanding to different k. In terms of complex analysis, each Fourier component does contribute an additional phase to f(r) for different k
 
For the second question, I think I understand it. The author of the book is not trying to calculate the element of the effective Hamiltonian, but focusing on how to represent the operator of the effective Hamiltonian in the complex numbers.

PS: I am the one who start this post.
 

Similar threads

Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
12
Views
1K
Replies
13
Views
5K
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Back
Top