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.

extern vs const in C++ and C code.

October 5, 2015 C/C++ development and debugging. , , , , , ,

We now build DB2 on linux ppcle with the IBM xlC 13.1.2 compiler. This version of the compiler is a hybrid compared to any previous compilers, retaining the IBM xlC backend for power, but using the clang front end. Because of this we are exposed to a large number of warnings that we don’t see with many other compilers (well we probably do for our MacOSX port, but we do not really have active development on that platform at the moment), and I’ve been trying to take down those counts to manageable levels. Header files that produce warnings have been my first target since they introduce the most repeated noise.

One message that I was seeing hundreds of was

warning: 'extern' variable has an initializer [-Wextern-initializer]

This seemed to be coming from headers that did something like:

#if defined FOO_INITIALIZE_IT_IN_SOME_SOURCE_FILE
extern const TYPE foo[] = { ... } ;
#else
extern const TYPE foo[] ;
#endif


where FOO_INITIALIZE_IT_IN_SOME_SOURCE_FILE is defined at the top of a source file that explicitly includes this header. My attempt to handle the messages was to remove the ‘extern’ from the initialization case, but I was suprised to see link errors as a result of some of those changes. It turns out that there are some subtle differences between different variations of const and extern with an array declaration of this sort. Here’s a bit of sample code:

// t.h
extern const int x[] ;
extern int y[] ;
extern int z[] ;


// t.cc
#if defined WANT_LINK_ERROR
const int x[] = { 42 } ;
#else
extern const int x[] = { 42 } ;
#endif

extern int y[] = { 42 } ;
int z[] = { 42 } ;


When WANT_LINK_ERROR isn’t defined, this produces just one clang warning message

t.cc:8:12: warning: 'extern' variable has an initializer [-Wextern-initializer]
extern int y[] = { 42 } ;
           ^

Note that the ‘extern const’ has no such warning, nor does the non-const symbol that’s been declared ‘extern’ in the header. However, removing the extern from the const case (via -DWANT_LINK_ERROR) results in no symbol ‘x’ available to other consumers. The extern is required for const symbols, but generates a warning for non-const symbols.

It appears that this is also C++ specific. A const symbol in C compiled code is available for external use, regardless of whether extern is used:



$ clang -c t.c
t.c:5:18: warning: 'extern' variable has an initializer [-Wextern-initializer]
extern const int x[] = { 42 } ;
                 ^
t.c:8:12: warning: 'extern' variable has an initializer [-Wextern-initializer]
extern int y[] = { 42 } ;
           ^
2 warnings generated.

$ nm t.o
0000000000000000 R x
0000000000000000 D y
0000000000000004 D z

$ clang -c -DWANT_LINK_ERROR t.c
t.c:8:12: warning: 'extern' variable has an initializer [-Wextern-initializer]
extern int y[] = { 42 } ;
           ^
1 warning generated.
$  nm t.o
0000000000000000 R x
0000000000000000 D y
0000000000000004 D z


whereas that same symbol requires extern if it is const in C++:


$ clang++ -c t.cc
t.cc:8:12: warning: 'extern' variable has an initializer [-Wextern-initializer]
extern int y[] = { 42 } ;
           ^
1 warning generated.
$ nm t.o
0000000000000000 R x
0000000000000000 D y
0000000000000004 D z



$ clang++ -c -DWANT_LINK_ERROR t.cc
t.cc:8:12: warning: 'extern' variable has an initializer [-Wextern-initializer]
extern int y[] = { 42 } ;
           ^
1 warning generated.
$ nm t.o
0000000000000000 D y
0000000000000004 D z


I hadn’t expected the const to interact this way with extern. I am guessing that C++ allows for the compiler to not generate symbols for global scope const variables, unless you ask for that by using extern, whereas with C you get the symbol like-it-or-not. This particular message from the clang front end is only for non-const extern initializations, making across the board fixing of messages for extern initialization of the sort above trickier. This makes it so that you can’t do an across the board replacement of extern in initializers for a given file without first ensuring that the symbol isn’t const. It looks like dealing with this will have to be done much more carefully than I first tried.

First update of aggregate notes for phy1520, Graduate Quantum Mechanics

October 2, 2015 phy1520 ,

I’ve posted a first update of my aggregate notes for PHY1520H Graduate Quantum Mechanics, taught by Prof. Arun Paramekanti. This includes lecture notes up to lecture 5, my ungraded solutions for the first problem set, and a number of worked problems from chapter 1 and 2 of Sakurai done as review preparation for the course (since I hadn’t done QM since 2011).

Most of the content was posted individually in the following locations. Bug fixes and enhancements to the original documents will only be made in the aggregate notes.

Toike politics

October 1, 2015 Incoherent ramblings , , , , , , ,

toikePolitics

 

Kudos to the Toike once again.  They really nailed the conservative ad.  I’m not old enough to know what Trudeau senior’s politics were nor how they compare to junior, so that’s hard to comment on.  What I do know of Trudeau is that he has demonstrated the same will to institute an unbounded police state, by voting and forcing Liberal voting for C-51, as Harper and head KGB want-a-be Minister Blainey.  That’s score zero for votes from me for the blue and the red.

Since I don’t like a policy of unbounded tax hikes the NDP won’t get my vote.

The only option left for my riding is the Green party.  The Toike’s description of “fuzzy” is exactly what the Green party platform looked like last go round, so unless they’ve improved that really leaves “None of the Above” as my only option.

I expect that all the parties are playing the same game, seeing who can “promise” the most for “free”, where free means funded out of taxes extracted from us and future generations … like it or not.  What a sham this election farce is!  How can people delude themselves into thinking that one vote every few years to a representative that will probably ignore you once elected, or not be elected, is somehow representation.