Continuity Equation in an Electromagnetic Field

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on deriving the continuity equation for a charged particle in an electromagnetic field using the time-dependent Schrödinger equation. The participant outlines their approach, which involves manipulating the equations and applying the divergence theorem to express the continuity equation. They encounter an issue with a factor of 2 in their calculations and seek clarification on its origin. Another participant suggests revisiting the product rule for derivatives, emphasizing that the gradient operator acts on both the wave function and the vector potential. This insight helps resolve the confusion regarding the missing factor.
Rubiss
Messages
21
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Derive the continuity equation for a charged particle in an electromagnetic field

Homework Equations



The time-dependent Schrodinger equation and its complex conjugate are

i\hbar\frac{\partial \psi}{\partial t}=\frac{1}{2m}(-i\hbar \vec{\nabla} - \frac{e}{c} \vec{A})^{2}\psi+e\phi\psi

i\hbar\frac{\partial \psi^{*}}{\partial t}=\frac{1}{2m}(+i\hbar \vec{\nabla} - \frac{e}{c} \vec{A})^{2}\psi^{*}+e\phi\psi^{*}

The Attempt at a Solution



I proceed in much the same way I would when deriving the continuity equation without a magnetic field. I multiply the top equation by psi-star, the bottom by psi and subtract the bottom equation from the top equation to obtain

\frac{\partial \rho}{\partial t} = \frac{-\hbar}{2mi}(\psi^{*}\vec{\nabla}^{2}\psi - \psi \vec{\nabla}^{2} \psi^{*})+\frac{e}{2mc}(2|\psi|^{2}\vec{\nabla} \cdot \vec{A}+\psi^{*}\vec{A} \cdot \vec{\nabla}\psi + \psi \vec{A} \cdot \vec{\nabla}\psi^{*})

Now I pull a divergence out of the first quantity in the parentheses on the right, and that becomes the the probability current when there is no magnetic field. Then I use the fact that the divergence of A is zero. This leaves me with

\frac{\partial \rho}{\partial t} = -\vec{\nabla} \cdot \vec{j} + \frac{e}{2mc} (\psi^{*}\vec{A} \cdot \vec{\nabla}\psi + \psi \vec{A} \cdot \vec{\nabla}\psi^{*})

Now I pull the A out of parentheses:

\frac{\partial \rho}{\partial t} = -\vec{\nabla} \cdot \vec{j} + \frac{e}{2mc} \vec{A} \cdot (\psi^{*}\vec{\nabla}\psi + \psi\vec{\nabla}\psi^{*})

This becomes

\frac{\partial \rho}{\partial t} = -\vec{\nabla} \cdot \vec{j} + \frac{e}{2mc} \vec{A} \cdot (\vec{\nabla}|\psi|^{2})

and I can pull the gradient out because del dot A is zero:

\frac{\partial \rho}{\partial t} = -\vec{\nabla} \cdot \vec{j} + \frac{e}{2mc} \vec{\nabla} \cdot (\vec{A}|\psi|^{2})

Now pull the divergence out of both terms:

\frac{\partial \rho}{\partial t} = -\vec{\nabla} \cdot (\vec{j} + \frac{e}{2mc}\vec{A}|\psi|^{2})

Now I am very close to the correct answer (I know because the result is on the page "probability current" on Wikipedia). My only problem is that there should NOT be a 2 in the denominator. I have spent a long time trying to find out why this 2 is there. Any help would be appreciated.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Rubiss said:
The time-dependent Schrodinger equation and its complex conjugate are

i\hbar\frac{\partial \psi}{\partial t}=\frac{1}{2m}(-i\hbar \vec{\nabla} - \frac{e}{c} \vec{A})^{2}\psi+e\phi\psi

i\hbar\frac{\partial \psi^{*}}{\partial t}=\frac{1}{2m}(+i\hbar \vec{\nabla} - \frac{e}{c} \vec{A})^{2}\psi^{*}+e\phi\psi^{*}

I multiply the top equation by psi-star, the bottom by psi and subtract the bottom equation from the top equation to obtain

\frac{\partial \rho}{\partial t} = \frac{-\hbar}{2mi}(\psi^{*}\vec{\nabla}^{2}\psi - \psi \vec{\nabla}^{2} \psi^{*})+\frac{e}{2mc}(2|\psi|^{2}\vec{\nabla} \cdot \vec{A}+\psi^{*}\vec{A} \cdot \vec{\nabla}\psi + \psi \vec{A} \cdot \vec{\nabla}\psi^{*})

See if you can show that you are missing a couple of factors of 2 above. I think it should be

\frac{\partial \rho}{\partial t} = \frac{-\hbar}{2mi}(\psi^{*}\vec{\nabla}^{2}\psi - \psi \vec{\nabla}^{2} \psi^{*})+\frac{e}{2mc}(2|\psi|^{2}\vec{\nabla} \cdot \vec{A}+2\psi^{*}\vec{A} \cdot \vec{\nabla}\psi + 2\psi \vec{A} \cdot \vec{\nabla}\psi^{*})
 
TSny said:
See if you can show that you are missing a couple of factors of 2 above. I think it should be

\frac{\partial \rho}{\partial t} = \frac{-\hbar}{2mi}(\psi^{*}\vec{\nabla}^{2}\psi - \psi \vec{\nabla}^{2} \psi^{*})+\frac{e}{2mc}(2|\psi|^{2}\vec{\nabla} \cdot \vec{A}+2\psi^{*}\vec{A} \cdot \vec{\nabla}\psi + 2\psi \vec{A} \cdot \vec{\nabla}\psi^{*})

I think you're right, but I have rewritten my steps many times, and do not get that factor of 2 to show up. Very frustrating.
 
Rubiss said:
I think you're right, but I have rewritten my steps many times, and do not get that factor of 2 to show up. Very frustrating.

For

i\hbar\frac{\partial \psi}{\partial t}=\frac{1}{2m}(-i\hbar \vec{\nabla} - \frac{e}{c} \vec{A})^{2}\psi+e\phi\psi

try writing it as

i\hbar\frac{\partial \psi}{\partial t}=\frac{1}{2m}(-i\hbar \vec{\nabla} - \frac{e}{c} \vec{A})\cdot (-i\hbar \vec{\nabla} - \frac{e}{c} \vec{A})\psi+e\phi\psi

First write out ##(-i\hbar \vec{\nabla} - \frac{e}{c} \vec{A})\psi## and then operate on the result with the other ##(-i\hbar \vec{\nabla} - \frac{e}{c} \vec{A})##. If you encounter ##\vec{\nabla}\cdot(\vec{A}\psi)## then remember that ##\vec{\nabla}## operates on both ##\vec{A}## and ##\psi## according to the product rule.
 
TSny said:
For

i\hbar\frac{\partial \psi}{\partial t}=\frac{1}{2m}(-i\hbar \vec{\nabla} - \frac{e}{c} \vec{A})^{2}\psi+e\phi\psi

try writing it as

i\hbar\frac{\partial \psi}{\partial t}=\frac{1}{2m}(-i\hbar \vec{\nabla} - \frac{e}{c} \vec{A})\cdot (-i\hbar \vec{\nabla} - \frac{e}{c} \vec{A})\psi+e\phi\psi

First write out ##(-i\hbar \vec{\nabla} - \frac{e}{c} \vec{A})\psi## and then operate on the result with the other ##(-i\hbar \vec{\nabla} - \frac{e}{c} \vec{A})##. If you encounter ##\vec{\nabla}\cdot(\vec{A}\psi)## then remember that ##\vec{\nabla}## operates on both ##\vec{A}## and ##\psi## according to the product rule.


Ah, yes! That is the crucial part I was missing - del acts on both psi and A.

Thanks so much!
 
Thread 'Help with Time-Independent Perturbation Theory "Good" States Proof'
(Disclaimer: this is not a HW question. I am self-studying, and this felt like the type of question I've seen in this forum. If there is somewhere better for me to share this doubt, please let me know and I'll transfer it right away.) I am currently reviewing Chapter 7 of Introduction to QM by Griffiths. I have been stuck for an hour or so trying to understand the last paragraph of this proof (pls check the attached file). It claims that we can express Ψ_{γ}(0) as a linear combination of...
Back
Top