Confused about going from relativistic to non-relativistic Hamilonian

In summary, the conversation discusses the transformation from Eq. 32 to Eq. 33 in a paper, where the Hamiltonian is represented by the gamma matrices and the electron and quark/nucleon fields. In the non-relativistic limit, the Hamiltonian becomes proportional to the nuclear density, represented by the term ##\rho(r)##, and acts only in the electronic sector. The confusion arises regarding the absence of the electronic ##\gamma_\mu## term and the interpretation of the nuclear density term.
  • #1
Malamala
313
27
Hello! My question is related to going from Eq. 32 to Eq. 33 in this paper (however I have seen this in other papers, too). In summary, starting with:

$$H \propto \bar{e}\gamma_\mu\gamma_5 e \bar{q}\gamma^\mu q$$
where we have the gamma matrices, e is the electron field and q is the quark/nucleon field, if we assume the nucleus is non-relativistic we end up with:

$$H \propto \gamma_5\rho(r)$$
where ##\rho(r)## is the nuclear density and this is a Hamiltonian acting in the electronic sector.

My confusions are:
1. Where did the electronic ##\gamma_\mu## go?
2. (More important) I am not sure I understand the ##\rho(r)## term. Is r referring to the nuclear or electronic position? If it is nuclear, I am confused as, given we integrated out the nuclear part, the nuclear term should be a constant, no? If it refers to electron, I am not sure how to think of the nuclear density as a function of electron coordinates and how does it even end up being a function of the electronic coordiates?

I would really appreciate some help with this. Thank you!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
##\rho=j^{0}=\bar{q}\gamma^0 q=q^{\dagger} q##. In the non-relativistic limit, the dominating term is indeed the Coulomb-like interaction.
 

FAQ: Confused about going from relativistic to non-relativistic Hamilonian

What is the main difference between a relativistic and a non-relativistic Hamiltonian?

The main difference lies in how they treat kinetic energy. A non-relativistic Hamiltonian uses the classical expression for kinetic energy, \( \frac{p^2}{2m} \), while a relativistic Hamiltonian uses the relativistic expression, which is derived from \( E = \sqrt{p^2c^2 + m^2c^4} \), where \( p \) is momentum, \( m \) is mass, and \( c \) is the speed of light.

How do you derive the non-relativistic Hamiltonian from the relativistic one?

To derive the non-relativistic Hamiltonian from the relativistic one, you typically perform a low-velocity approximation. Starting from the relativistic energy expression \( E = \sqrt{p^2c^2 + m^2c^4} \), you expand it in a Taylor series for \( v \ll c \). This yields \( E \approx mc^2 + \frac{p^2}{2m} \), where the first term is the rest energy and the second term is the classical kinetic energy, which forms the basis of the non-relativistic Hamiltonian.

Why is the rest mass energy term often omitted in the non-relativistic Hamiltonian?

In non-relativistic physics, the rest mass energy \( mc^2 \) is usually omitted because it is a constant that does not affect the dynamics of the system. The focus is on the kinetic and potential energies, which determine the motion and interactions of particles. The rest mass energy becomes relevant in relativistic contexts where the total energy is considered.

What are the implications of using a non-relativistic Hamiltonian in quantum mechanics?

Using a non-relativistic Hamiltonian in quantum mechanics implies that the Schrödinger equation is used to describe the system. This is valid when particle speeds are much less than the speed of light, and relativistic effects can be neglected. It simplifies calculations but may not accurately describe high-energy or high-velocity scenarios where relativistic effects become significant.

Can you provide an example where transitioning from a relativistic to a non-relativistic Hamiltonian is necessary?

An example is in atomic physics, where electrons in an atom are typically moving at speeds much less than the speed of light. Here, the non-relativistic Hamiltonian is sufficient to describe the system accurately. However, for high-energy particles in accelerators or astrophysical phenomena involving high velocities, a relativistic Hamiltonian would be necessary for accurate descriptions.

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
87
Views
6K
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Back
Top