Month: October 2015

PHY1520H Graduate Quantum Mechanics. Lecture 8: Dirac equation in 1D. Taught by Prof. Arun Paramekanti

October 13, 2015 phy1520 , , , ,

[Click here for a PDF of this post with nicer formatting]

Disclaimer

Peeter’s lecture notes from class. These may be incoherent and rough.

These are notes for the UofT course PHY1520, Graduate Quantum Mechanics, taught by Prof. Paramekanti.

Schrodinger Derivation

Recall that a “derivation” of the Schrodinger equation can be associated with the following equivalences

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:qmLecture8:300}
E \leftrightarrow \Hbar \omega \leftrightarrow i \Hbar \PD{t}{}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:qmLecture8:320}
p \leftrightarrow \Hbar k \leftrightarrow -i \Hbar \PD{t}{}
\end{equation}

so that the classical energy relationship

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:qmLecture8:20}
E = \frac{p^2}{2m}
\end{equation}

takes the form

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:qmLecture8:40}
i \Hbar \PD{t}{} = -\frac{\Hbar^2}{2m}.
\end{equation}

How do we do this in a relativistic context where the energy momentum relationship is

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:qmLecture8:60}
E = \sqrt{ p^2 c^2 + m^2 c^4 } \approx m c^2 + \frac{p^2}{2m} + \cdots
\end{equation}

where \( m \) is the rest mass and \( c \) is the speed of light.

Attempt I

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:qmLecture8:80}
E = m c^2 + \frac{p^2}{2m} + (…) p^4 + (…) p^6 + \cdots
\end{equation}

First order in time, but infinite order in space \( \partial/\partial x \). Useless.

Attempt II

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:qmLecture8:100}
E^2 = p^2 c^2 + m^2 c^4.
\end{equation}

This gives

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:qmLecture8:120}
-\Hbar^2 \PDSq{t}{\psi} = – \Hbar^2 c^2 \PDSq{x}{\psi} + m^2 c^4 \psi.
\end{equation}

This is the Klein-Gordon equation, which is second order in time.

Attempt III

Suppose that we have the matrix

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:qmLecture8:140}
\begin{bmatrix}
p c & m c^2 \\
m c^2 & – p c
\end{bmatrix},
\end{equation}

or

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:qmLecture8:160}
\begin{bmatrix}
m c^2 & i p c \\
-i p c & – m c^2
\end{bmatrix},
\end{equation}

These both happen to have eigenvalues \( \lambda_{\pm} = \pm \sqrt{p^2 c^2} \). For those familiar with the Dirac matrices, this amounts to a choice for different representations of the gamma matrices.

Working with \ref{eqn:qmLecture8:140}, which has some nicer features than other possible representations, we seek a state

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:qmLecture8:180}
\Bpsi =
\begin{bmatrix}
\psi_1(x, t) \\
\psi_2(x, t) \\
\end{bmatrix},
\end{equation}

where we aim to write down an equation for this composite state.

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:qmLecture8:200}
i \Hbar \PD{t}{\Bpsi} = \BH \Bpsi
\end{equation}

Assuming the matrix is the Hamiltonian, multiplying that with the composite state gives

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:qmLecture8:220}
\begin{aligned}
\begin{bmatrix}
i \Hbar \PD{t}{\psi_1} \\
i \Hbar \PD{t}{\psi_1}
\end{bmatrix}
&=
\begin{bmatrix}
\hat{p} c & m c^2 \\
m c^2 & – \hat{p} c
\end{bmatrix}
\begin{bmatrix}
\psi_1(x, t) \\
\psi_2(x, t) \\
\end{bmatrix} \\
&=
\begin{bmatrix}
\hat{p} c \psi_1 + m c^2 \psi_2 \\
m c^2 \psi_1 – \hat{p} c \psi_2
\end{bmatrix}.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}

What happens when we square this?

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:qmLecture8:240}
\begin{aligned}
\lr{ i \Hbar \PD{t}{} }^2 \Bpsi
&= \BH \BH \Bpsi \\
&=
\begin{bmatrix}
\hat{p} c & m c^2 \\
m c^2 & – \hat{p} c
\end{bmatrix}
\begin{bmatrix}
\hat{p} c & m c^2 \\
m c^2 & – \hat{p} c
\end{bmatrix}
\Bpsi \\
&=
\begin{bmatrix}
\hat{p}^2 c^2 + m^2 c^4 & 0 \\
0 & \hat{p}^2 c^2 + m^2 c^4 \\
\end{bmatrix}.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}

That is
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:qmLecture8:260}
– \Hbar^2 \PDSq{t}{} \Bpsi
=
\lr{ \hat{p}^2 c^2 + m^2 c^4 } \mathbf{1} \Bpsi,
\end{equation}

or more exactly

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:qmLecture8:280}
– \Hbar^2 \PDSq{t}{} \psi_{1,2}
=
\lr{ \hat{p}^2 c^2 + m^2 c^4 } \psi_{1,2}.
\end{equation}

This recovers the Klein Gordon equation for each of the wave functions \( \psi_1, \psi_2 \).

Instead of squaring the operators, lets try to solve the first order equation. To do so we’ll want to diagonalize \( \BH \).

Before doing that, let’s write out the Hamiltonian in an alternate but useful form

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:qmLecture8:340}
\BH
=
\hat{p} c
\begin{bmatrix}
1 & 0 \\
0 & -1
\end{bmatrix}
+
m c^2
\begin{bmatrix}
0 & 1 \\
1 & 0
\end{bmatrix}
= \hat{p} c \hat{\sigma}_z + m c^2 \hat{\sigma}_x.
\end{equation}

We have two types of operators in the mix here. We have matrix operators that act on the wave function matrices, as well as derivative operators that act on the components of those matrices.

We have

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:qmLecture8:360}
\hat{\sigma}_z
\begin{bmatrix}
\psi_1 \\
\psi_2 \\
\end{bmatrix}
=
\begin{bmatrix}
\psi_1 \\
-\psi_2 \\
\end{bmatrix},
\end{equation}

and

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:qmLecture8:380}
\hat{\sigma}_x
\begin{bmatrix}
\psi_1 \\
\psi_2 \\
\end{bmatrix}
=
\begin{bmatrix}
\psi_2 \\
\psi_1 \\
\end{bmatrix}.
\end{equation}

Because the derivative actions of \( \hat{p} \) and the matrix operators are independent, we see that these operators commute. For example

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:qmLecture8:400}
\hat{\sigma}_z \hat{p}
\begin{bmatrix}
\psi_1 \\
\psi_2 \\
\end{bmatrix}
=
\hat{\sigma}_z
\begin{bmatrix}
-i \Hbar \PD{x}{\psi_1} \\
-i \Hbar \PD{x}{\psi_2} \\
\end{bmatrix}
=
\begin{bmatrix}
-i \Hbar \PD{x}{\psi_1} \\
i \Hbar \PD{x}{\psi_2} \\
\end{bmatrix}
=
\hat{p}
\hat{\sigma}_z
\begin{bmatrix}
\psi_1 \\
\psi_2 \\
\end{bmatrix}.
\end{equation}

Diagonalizing it

Suppose the wave function matrix has the structure

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:qmLecture8:420}
\Bpsi =
\begin{bmatrix}
f_{+} \\
f_{-} \\
\end{bmatrix}
e^{i k x}.
\end{equation}

We’ll plug this into the Schrodinger equation and see what we get.

more correspondence with Markham-Unionville Green Party rep., Elvin Kao

October 9, 2015 Incoherent ramblings , , , , ,

I’d asked of Elvin Kao, the local green party candidate

It is refreshing to hear of this party position on whipping votes, and on bill C-51.  Can you please provide me a reference to the location of your party documentation where that no-whip policy is stated.
Asking CSIS for conclusive data that supports their funding is like asking somebody “would you like a raise?”.  You will surely be returned data that will support the case for more and more invasive policing.
I also asked about your position on Canada’s military.  My logical expectation that the Green party position on offensive military would be severe, since Military forces everywhere are easily argued to be the most flagrant and blatant polluters in existence.  Consider, for example, the environmental damage of all the nuclear bombs that have been deployed and tested, the all-species genetic damage due to depleted Uranium deployment in Iraq, and the intense carbon footprint of so many air, ground, and water fleets.  Does your party take an explicit position on the scale and deployment of Canada’s military forces?
What is your position on the Canadian bombing of Syria?  Recalling other such targets like Serbia, it is easy to see that Canada has been historically complicit as acting as a proxy for the United States in its zeal to bring peace with bombs.  I find it odd that there is lots of coverage in the Canadian press on the Syrian refugee crisis, but nothing on our direct contribution to that crisis.

His response:

The Green party does not have whipped votes.
https://www.greenparty.ca/en/convention-2014/voting/motions/g14-p31

We want government reform that will end all whipped votes, so that MPs can represent their constituents.
http://www.greenparty.ca/en/democratic-reform

In terms of CSIS and showing results for the allocation of resources should not be a proposition they should be shocked at and is the kind of oversight that should be mandatory so that we do not have unnecessary government overhead.

The Green party believes that Canada should be a peace keeping country, and will only engage in war as a last resort. Any strike on a nation or group should have approval from UN Security Council. Canada for the first time has disappeared from international stage as it has lost its seat from the UN Security Council. In terms of scale of Canadian forces deployment based on environmental impact, there is no policy. With Canadian and other lives to consider during those moments, I do not believe we should consider the environmental impact in those instances and we should make sure that our Canadian troops are well equipped. The environmental impact is small compared to Canadian industries, producing everyday, and other polluting problems.

Canada has lost its touch as a peace keeping country and has blindly followed all US led missions. I do not believe that air strikes in that region are helping, and creates more radicals for western hatred. There is too much conflict between multiple groups in the Syrian civil war and it would be difficult to choose sides.

Thanks for the questions,

I have a lot of trouble with anybody that bandies about the putrid peace keeping doublespeak when it really means warfare, often blatantly offensive warfare.  Elvin is already working hard at speaking in the meaningless way of a politician despite being really new to the game.

Just because the UN, effectively a puppet organization for the United States, sanctions the oppression of the current enemy de-jour, doesn’t mean that it is something that I want to be funding with the taxes that are collected from me like it or not.

It appears that I am left without any representation in the current collection of candidates for my riding.  The liberal and conservative parties are for all intents and purposes the same despite the different colours that they use in the advertising.  When push comes to shove a leader from on-high, serving interests that we’ll never know the full details of, sets the party policy and party members who choose to deviate will be expelled.  Most probably wouldn’t care to rock the boat and are willyfully ignorant to the fact that they are meaningless and purposeless.  The NDP is a communist party want-to-be, and I can’t vote for them.  Collective socialism has killed hundreds of millions of people so far.  How many more people have to die before people finally realize it’s a bad idea?  I don’t believe that a vote for the NDP means we’ll have any immediate prospect of such death here in Canada, but taking any steps in that direction doesn’t seem prudent.

I don’t trust the language that this Green party rep uses.  He appears to be is trying too hard to be a politician, which essentially means a liar.  Perhaps he’s the least evil of the options around, but I may just explicitly vote none of the above.

1D SHO linear superposition that maximizes expectation

October 7, 2015 phy1520 , , , , , ,

[Click here for a PDF of this post with nicer formatting]

Question: 1D SHO linear superposition that maximizes expectation ([1] pr. 2.17)

For a 1D SHO

(a)

Construct a linear combination of \( \ket{0}, \ket{1} \) that maximizes \( \expectation{x} \) without using wave functions.

(b)

How does this state evolve with time?

(c)

Evaluate \( \expectation{x} \) using the Schrodinger picture.

(d)

Evaluate \( \expectation{x} \) using the Heisenberg picture.

(e)

Evaluate \( \expectation{(\Delta x)^2} \).

Answer

(a)

Forming

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:shoSuperposition:20}
\ket{\psi} = \frac{\ket{0} + \sigma \ket{1}}{\sqrt{1 + \Abs{\sigma}^2}}
\end{equation}

the position expectation is

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:shoSuperposition:40}
\bra{\psi} x \ket{\psi}
=
\inv{1 + \Abs{\sigma}^2} \lr{ \bra{0} + \sigma^\conj \bra{1} } \frac{x_0}{\sqrt{2}} \lr{ a^\dagger + a } \lr{ \ket{0} + \sigma \ket{1} }.
\end{equation}

Evaluating the action of the operators on the kets, we’ve got

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:shoSuperposition:60}
\lr{ a^\dagger + a } \lr{ \ket{0} + \sigma \ket{1} }
=
\ket{1} + \sqrt{2} \sigma \ket{2} + \sigma \ket{0}.
\end{equation}

The \( \ket{2} \) term is killed by the bras, leaving

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:shoSuperposition:80}
\begin{aligned}
\expectation{x}
&=
\inv{1 + \Abs{\sigma}^2} \frac{x_0}{\sqrt{2}} \lr{ \sigma + \sigma^\conj} \\
&=
\frac{\sqrt{2} x_0 \textrm{Re} \sigma}{1 + \Abs{\sigma}^2}.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}

Any imaginary component in \( \sigma \) will reduce the expectation, so we are constrained to picking a real value.

The derivative of

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:shoSuperposition:100}
f(\sigma) = \frac{\sigma}{1 + \sigma^2},
\end{equation}

is

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:shoSuperposition:120}
f'(\sigma) = \frac{1 – \sigma^2}{(1 + \sigma^2)^2}.
\end{equation}

That has zeros at \( \sigma = \pm 1 \). The second derivative is

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:shoSuperposition:140}
f”(\sigma) = \frac{-2 \sigma (3 – \sigma^2)}{(1 + \sigma^2)^3}.
\end{equation}

That will be negative (maximum for the extreme value) at \( \sigma = 1 \), so the linear superposition of these first two energy eigenkets that maximizes the position expectation is

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:shoSuperposition:160}
\psi = \inv{\sqrt{2}}\lr{ \ket{0} + \ket{1} }.
\end{equation}

That maximized position expectation is

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:shoSuperposition:180}
\expectation{x}
=
\frac{x_0}{\sqrt{2}}.
\end{equation}

(b)

The time evolution is given by

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:shoSuperposition:200}
\begin{aligned}
\ket{\Psi(t)}
&= e^{-iH t/\Hbar} \inv{\sqrt{2}}\lr{ \ket{0} + \ket{1} } \\
&= \inv{\sqrt{2}}\lr{ e^{-i(0+ \ifrac{1}{2})\Hbar \omega t/\Hbar} \ket{0} +
e^{-i(1+ \ifrac{1}{2})\Hbar \omega t/\Hbar} \ket{1} } \\
&= \inv{\sqrt{2}}\lr{ e^{-i \omega t/2} \ket{0} + e^{-3 i \omega t/2} \ket{1} }.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}

(c)

The position expectation in the Schrodinger representation is

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:shoSuperposition:220}
\begin{aligned}
\expectation{x(t)}
&=
\inv{2}
\lr{ e^{i \omega t/2} \bra{0} + e^{3 i \omega t/2} \bra{1} } \frac{x_0}{\sqrt{2}} \lr{ a^\dagger + a }
\lr{ e^{-i \omega t/2} \ket{0} + e^{-3 i \omega t/2} \ket{1} } \\
&=
\frac{x_0}{2\sqrt{2}}
\lr{ e^{i \omega t/2} \bra{0} + e^{3 i \omega t/2} \bra{1} }
\lr{ e^{-i \omega t/2} \ket{1} + e^{-3 i \omega t/2} \sqrt{2} \ket{2} + e^{-3 i \omega t/2} \ket{0} } \\
&=
\frac{x_0}{\sqrt{2}} \cos(\omega t).
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}

(d)

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:shoSuperposition:240}
\begin{aligned}
\expectation{x(t)}
&=
\inv{2}
\lr{ \bra{0} + \bra{1} } \frac{x_0}{\sqrt{2}}
\lr{ a^\dagger e^{i\omega t} + a e^{-i \omega t} }
\lr{ \ket{0} + \ket{1} } \\
&=
\frac{x_0}{2 \sqrt{2}}
\lr{ \bra{0} + \bra{1} }
\lr{ e^{i\omega t} \ket{1} + \sqrt{2} e^{i\omega t} \ket{2} + e^{-i \omega t} \ket{0} } \\
&=
\frac{x_0}{\sqrt{2}} \cos(\omega t),
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}

matching the calculation using the Schrodinger picture.

(e)

Let’s use the Heisenberg picture for the uncertainty calculation. Using the calculation above we have

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:shoSuperposition:260}
\begin{aligned}
\expectation{x^2}
&=
\inv{2} \frac{x_0^2}{2}
\lr{ e^{-i\omega t} \bra{1} + \sqrt{2} e^{-i\omega t} \bra{2} + e^{i \omega t} \bra{0} }
\lr{ e^{i\omega t} \ket{1} + \sqrt{2} e^{i\omega t} \ket{2} + e^{-i \omega t} \ket{0} } \\
&=
\frac{x_0^2}{4} \lr{ 1 + 2 + 1} \\
&=
x_0^2.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}

The uncertainty is
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:shoSuperposition:280}
\begin{aligned}
\expectation{(\Delta x)^2}
&=
\expectation{x^2} – \expectation{x}^2 \\
&=
x_0^2 – \frac{x_0^2}{2} \cos^2(\omega t) \\
&=
\frac{x_0^2}{2} \lr{ 2 – \cos^2(\omega t) } \\
&=
\frac{x_0^2}{2} \lr{ 1 + \sin^2(\omega t) }
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}

References

[1] Jun John Sakurai and Jim J Napolitano. Modern quantum mechanics. Pearson Higher Ed, 2014.

PHY1520H Graduate Quantum Mechanics. Lecture 6: Electromagnetic gauge transformation and Aharonov-Bohm effect. Taught by Prof. Arun Paramekanti

October 6, 2015 phy1520 , , ,

[Click here for a PDF of this post with nicer formatting]

Disclaimer

Peeter’s lecture notes from class. These may be incoherent and rough.

These are notes for the UofT course PHY1520, Graduate Quantum Mechanics, taught by Prof. Paramekanti, covering [1] chap. 2 content.

Particle with \( \BE, \BB \) fields

We express our fields with vector and scalar potentials

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:qmLecture6:20}
\BE, \BB \rightarrow \BA, \phi
\end{equation}

and apply a gauge transformed Hamiltonian

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:qmLecture6:40}
H = \inv{2m} \lr{ \Bp – q \BA }^2 + q \phi.
\end{equation}

Recall that in classical mechanics we have

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:qmLecture6:60}
\Bp – q \BA = m \Bv
\end{equation}

where \( \Bp \) is not gauge invariant, but the classical momentum \( m \Bv \) is.

If given a point in phase space we must also specify the gauge that we are working with.

For the quantum case, temporarily considering a Hamiltonian without any scalar potential, but introducing a gauge transformation

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:qmLecture6:80}
\BA \rightarrow \BA + \spacegrad \chi,
\end{equation}

which takes the Hamiltonian from

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:qmLecture6:100}
H = \inv{2m} \lr{ \Bp – q \BA }^2,
\end{equation}

to
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:qmLecture6:120}
H = \inv{2m} \lr{ \Bp – q \BA -q \spacegrad \chi }^2.
\end{equation}

We care that the position and momentum operators obey

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:qmLecture6:140}
\antisymmetric{\hat{r}_i}{\hat{p}_j} = i \Hbar \delta_{i j}.
\end{equation}

We can apply a transformation that keeps \( \Br \) the same, but changes the momentum

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:qmLecture6:160}
\begin{aligned}
\hat{\Br}’ &= \hat{\Br} \\
\hat{\Bp}’ &= \hat{\Bp} – q \spacegrad \chi(\Br)
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}

This maps the Hamiltonian to

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:qmLecture6:101}
H = \inv{2m} \lr{ \Bp’ – q \BA -q \spacegrad \chi }^2,
\end{equation}

We want to check if the commutator relationships have the desired structure, that is

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:qmLecture6:180}
\begin{aligned}
\antisymmetric{r_i’}{r_j’} &= 0 \\
\antisymmetric{p_i’}{p_j’} &= 0
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}

This is confirmed in \ref{problem:qmLecture6:1}.

Another thing of interest is how are the wave functions altered by this change of variables? The wave functions must change in response to this transformation if the energies of the Hamiltonian are to remain the same.

Considering a plane wave specified by

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:qmLecture6:200}
e^{i \Bk \cdot \Br},
\end{equation}

where we alter the momentum by

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:qmLecture6:220}
\Bk \rightarrow \Bk – e \spacegrad \chi.
\end{equation}

This takes the plane wave to

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:qmLecture6:240}
e^{i \lr{ \Bk – q \spacegrad \chi } \cdot \Br}.
\end{equation}

We want to try to find a wave function for the new Hamiltonian

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:qmLecture6:260}
H’ = \inv{2m} \lr{ \Bp’ – q \BA -q \spacegrad \chi }^2,
\end{equation}

of the form

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:qmLecture6:280}
\psi'(\Br)
\stackrel{?}{=}
e^{i \theta(\Br)} \psi(\Br),
\end{equation}

where the new wave function differs from a wave function for the original Hamiltonian by only a position dependent phase factor.

Let’s look at the action of the Hamiltonian on the new wave function

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:qmLecture6:300}
H’ \psi'(\Br) .
\end{equation}

Looking at just the first action

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:qmLecture6:320}
\begin{aligned}
\lr{ -i \Hbar \spacegrad – q \BA – q \spacegrad \chi } e^{i \theta(\Br)} \psi(\Br)
&=
e^{i\theta}
\lr{ -i \Hbar \spacegrad – q \BA – q \spacegrad \chi }
\psi(\Br)
+
\lr{
-i \Hbar i \spacegrad \theta
}
e^{i\theta}
\psi(\Br) \\
&=
e^{i\theta}
\lr{ -i \Hbar \spacegrad – q \BA – q \spacegrad \chi
+ \Hbar \spacegrad \theta
}
\psi(\Br).
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}

If we choose

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:qmLecture6:340}
\theta = \frac{q \chi}{\Hbar},
\end{equation}

then we are left with

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:qmLecture6:360}
\lr{ -i \Hbar \spacegrad – q \BA – q \spacegrad \chi } e^{i \theta(\Br)} \psi(\Br)
=
e^{i\theta}
\lr{ -i \Hbar \spacegrad – q \BA }
\psi(\Br).
\end{equation}

Let \( \BM = -i \Hbar \spacegrad – q \BA \), and act again with \( \lr{ -i \Hbar \spacegrad – q \BA – q \spacegrad \chi } \)

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:qmLecture6:700}
\begin{aligned}
\lr{ -i \Hbar \spacegrad – q \BA – q \spacegrad \chi } e^{i \theta} \BM \psi
&=
e^{i\theta}
\lr{ -i \Hbar i \spacegrad \theta – q \BA – q \spacegrad \chi } e^{i \theta} \BM \psi
+
e^{i\theta}
\lr{ -i \Hbar \spacegrad } \BM \psi \\
&=
e^{i\theta}
\lr{ -i \Hbar \spacegrad -q \BA + \spacegrad \lr{ \Hbar \theta – q \chi} } \BM \psi \\
&=
e^{i\theta} \BM^2 \psi.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}

Restoring factors of \( m \), we’ve shown that for a choice of \( \Hbar \theta – q \chi \), we have

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:qmLecture6:400}
\inv{2m} \lr{ -i \Hbar \spacegrad – q \BA – q \spacegrad \chi }^2 e^{i \theta} \psi = e^{i\theta}
\inv{2m} \lr{ -i \Hbar \spacegrad – q \BA }^2 \psi.
\end{equation}

When \( \psi \) is an energy eigenfunction, this means

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:qmLecture6:420}
H’ e^{i\theta} \psi = e^{i \theta} H \psi = e^{i\theta} E\psi = E (e^{i\theta} \psi).
\end{equation}

We’ve found a transformation of the wave function that has the same energy eigenvalues as the corresponding wave functions for the original untransformed Hamiltonian.

In summary
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:qmLecture6:440}
\boxed{
\begin{aligned}
H’ &= \inv{2m} \lr{ \Bp – q \BA – q \spacegrad \chi}^2 \\
\psi'(\Br) &= e^{i \theta(\Br)} \psi(\Br), \qquad \text{where}\, \theta(\Br) = q \chi(\Br)/\Hbar
\end{aligned}
}
\end{equation}

Aharonov-Bohm effect

Consider a periodic motion in a fixed ring as sketched in fig. 1.

fig. 1. particle confined to a ring

fig. 1. particle confined to a ring

Here the displacement around the perimeter is \( s = R \phi \) and the Hamiltonian

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:qmLecture6:460}
H = – \frac{\Hbar^2}{2 m} \PDSq{s}{} = – \frac{\Hbar^2}{2 m R^2} \PDSq{\phi}{}.
\end{equation}

Now assume that there is a magnetic field squeezed into the point at the origin, by virtue of a flux at the origin

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:qmLecture6:480}
\BB = \Phi_0 \delta(\Br) \zcap.
\end{equation}

We know that

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:qmLecture6:500}
\oint \BA \cdot d\Bl = \Phi_0,
\end{equation}

so that

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:qmLecture6:520}
\BA = \frac{\Phi_0}{2 \pi r} \phicap.
\end{equation}

The Hamiltonian for the new configuration is

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:qmLecture6:540}
\begin{aligned}
H
&= – \lr{ -i \Hbar \spacegrad – q \frac{\Phi_0}{2 \pi r } \phicap }^2 \\
&= – \inv{2 m} \lr{ -i \Hbar \inv{R} \PD{\phi}{} – q \frac{\Phi_0}{2 \pi R } }^2.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}

Here the replacement \( r \rightarrow R \) makes use of the fact that this problem as been posed with the particle forced to move around the ring at the fixed radius \( R \).

For this transformed Hamiltonian, what are the wave functions?

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:qmLecture6:560}
\psi(\phi)’
\stackrel{?}{=}
e^{i n \phi}.
\end{equation}

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:qmLecture6:580}
\begin{aligned}
H \psi
&= \inv{2 m}
\lr{ -i \Hbar \inv{R} (i n) – q \frac{\Phi_0}{2 \pi R } }^2 e^{i n \phi} \\
&=
\underbrace{\inv{2 m}
\lr{ \frac{\Hbar n}{R} – q \frac{\Phi_0}{2 \pi R } }^2}_{E_n} e^{i n \phi}.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}

This is very unclassical, since the energy changes in a way that depends on the flux, because particles are seeing magnetic fields that are not present at the point of the particle.

This is sketched in fig. 2.

fig. 2. Energy variation with flux.

fig. 2. Energy variation with flux.

we see that there are multiple points that the energies hit the minimum levels

Question:

Show that after a transformation of position and momentum of the following form

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:qmLecture6:600}
\begin{aligned}
\hat{\Br}’ &= \hat{\Br} \\
\hat{\Bp}’ &= \hat{\Bp} – q \spacegrad \chi(\Br)
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}

all the commutators have the expected values.

Answer

The position commutators don’t need consideration. Of interest is the momentum-position commutators

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:qmLecture6:620}
\begin{aligned}
\antisymmetric{\hat{p}_k’}{\hat{x}_k’}
&=
\antisymmetric{\hat{p}_k – q \partial_k \chi}{\hat{x}_k} \\
&=
\antisymmetric{\hat{p}_k}{\hat{x}_k} – q \antisymmetric{\partial_k \chi}{\hat{x}_k} \\
&=
\antisymmetric{\hat{p}_k}{\hat{x}_k},
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}

and the momentum commutators

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:qmLecture6:640}
\begin{aligned}
\antisymmetric{\hat{p}_k’}{\hat{p}_j’}
&=
\antisymmetric{\hat{p}_k – q \partial_k \chi}{\hat{p}_j – q \partial_j \chi} \\
&=
\antisymmetric{\hat{p}_k}{\hat{p}_j}
– q \lr{ \antisymmetric{\partial_k \chi}{\hat{p}_j} + \antisymmetric{\hat{p}_k}{\partial_j \chi} }.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}

That last sum of commutators is

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:qmLecture6:660}
\begin{aligned}
\antisymmetric{\partial_k \chi}{\hat{p}_j} + \antisymmetric{\hat{p}_k}{\partial_j \chi}
&=
– i \Hbar \lr{ \PD{k}{(\partial_j \chi)} – \PD{j}{(\partial_k \chi)} } \\
&= 0.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}

We’ve shown that

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:qmLecture6:680}
\begin{aligned}
\antisymmetric{\hat{p}_k’}{\hat{x}_k’} &= \antisymmetric{\hat{p}_k}{\hat{x}_k} \\
\antisymmetric{\hat{p}_k’}{\hat{p}_j’} &= \antisymmetric{\hat{p}_k}{\hat{p}_j}.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}

All the other commutators clearly have the desired transformation properties.

References

[1] Jun John Sakurai and Jim J Napolitano. Modern quantum mechanics. Pearson Higher Ed, 2014.

Accidental correctness

October 6, 2015 C/C++ development and debugging. ,

Here’s a fun warning message I saw today:


foo.h:408:15: warning: & has lower precedence than !=; != will be evaluated first [-Wparentheses]
  if( nibbles & 0x01 != 0 )
              ^~~~~~~~~~~
foo.h:408:15: note: place parentheses around the '!=' expression to silence this warning
  if( nibbles & 0x01 != 0 )
              ^
                (        )
foo.h:408:15: note: place parentheses around the & expression to evaluate it first
  if( nibbles & 0x01 != 0 )
              ^
      (             )

The author of the code appears to fluked out with this statement, since (0x01 != 0) == 1, which is exactly the bit that they were attempting to test against. Ironically, the != 0 was probably added for clarity, but if they had wanted to test against any other bit, the code wouldn’t have done what they expected, and “clarifying the statement” would have bugified it.