# Welcome back

## Find a book, put up your feet, stay awhile

Sign in with Facebook

Sorry, we are unable to log you in via Facebook at this time. Please try again later.

or

Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more

Download

Standard view

Full view

of .

Look up keyword

Like this

Share on social networks

2Activity

×

0 of .

Results for: No results containing your search query

P. 1

Relativistic Wave Equations for Many-particle Quantum SystemsRatings: (0)|Views: 7|Likes: 1

Published by alexandru_bratu_6

See more

See less

https://www.scribd.com/doc/95982663/Relativistic-Wave-Equations-for-Many-particle-Quantum-Systems

10/25/2014

text

original

Relativistic wave equations for many-particle quantum systems

S. Rupp

II. Institut fu¨ r Theoretische Physik der Universita¨ t Stuttgart, Pfaffenwaldring 57, D-70550 Stuttgart, Germany

Received 24 July 2002; revised manuscript received 22 November 2002; published 13 March 2003

In this paper, some concepts of nonrelativistic many-particle quantum mechanics

e.g., product states,density matrix

are generalized to the relativistic domain using a framework called relativistic Schro¨dingertheory

RST

. By using a general ansatz, the RST framework is simpliﬁed considerably and some of its ﬁeldequations are solved directly. The RST approach is then compared with nonrelativistic quantum mechanics

QM

for the case of a product state

conventional QM

and its RST analog. It is shown that relativistic waveequations can be derived from the RST formalism, so that they coincide in the nonrelativistic limit with thewell-known Hartree equations.DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.67.034101 PACS number

s

: 03.65.Pm, 03.65.Ge, 03.65.Ta

The dynamics of a state vector in nonrelativistic quantummechanics is governed by the Schro¨dinger equation

i

d dt

H ˆ

.

1

Likewise, the time development of a mixture conﬁguration isgiven by the von Neumann equation

i

d dt

H ˆ

,

.

2

The quantities

and

are elements of an inﬁnite-dimensional

global

Hilbert space and must therefore be con-sidered as nonlocal objects. For example, the state vector

of an

N

-particle system depends on the time coordinate

t

and the three-coordinates

x

i

(

i

1, . . . ,

N

) at

different

points of three-space. Both Eqs.

1

and

2

are not Lorentzcovariant, yet one may assume that they constitute the non-relativistic limiting case of some relativistic framework. Thisis clearly true for the one-particle case: The Schro¨dingerequation

1

may be considered as the nonrelativistic limit of the Klein-Gordon equation

D

D

Mc

2

0,

3

see Ref.

1

. The generalization of this result to a system of

N

particles is, however, difﬁcult as the

N

space coordinates

x

i

of

have to be replaced by

N

space-time coordinates

x

i

, such that the vector

depends on

N

individual par-ticle times

t

i

. This makes the interpretation of the state vec-tor difﬁcult and necessitates the construction of one globaltime out of the

N

individual particle times, a difﬁcult if notimpossible task

2

. For the two-particle case, this has beendone

cf. Bethe-Salpeter equation

3

, yet there still remainsome unsolved problems

4

. In summary, there do not existgenerally accepted relativistic wave equations for the

N

-particle case.If one was able to ﬁnd a relativistic generalization of Eqs.

1

and

2

, it should be possible to derive such relativisticwave equations for the many-particle case. Some years ago,a framework named relativistic Schro¨dinger theory

RST

has been proposed

5,6

as a possible step in that direction.However, the RST ﬁeld equations constitute a system of non-linear partial differential equations, which up to now hasbeen difﬁcult to solve. In this paper, we solve most of theRST ﬁeld equations using a general ansatz and show howRST deals with relativistic many-particle systems.The essential difference between the RST approach andconventional quantum theory is the way in which many-particle states are constructed from one-particle states;whereas conventional QM constructs many-particle states asproduct states from one-particle states, e.g., for two particles

in coordinate space

:

1

x

1

,

t

•

2

x

2

,

t

,

4

such that the total wave function depends on different pointsof space, the RST approach is considering the wave functionof a many-particle system as being constructed as the directsum of one-particle states at the

same

point of space-time:

x

1

x

2

x

1

x

2

x

.

5

One of the results of this paper is to show that using theansatz

4

in conventional QM and

5

in RST leads to thesame wave equations in the nonrelativistic case, namely, theHartree equations

7

, which constitute a set of wave equa-tions for the one-particle wave functions

1

and

2

. Theadvantage of the RST approach over conventional QM lies inthe fact that it produces a set of relativistic wave equationswhich reduce to the Hartree equations only in the nonrelativ-istic limit.Of course, the wave vector

5

must obey some dynamicalequation, which has been postulated in RST in close analogyto the nonrelativistic equation

1

:

i

c

D

H

,

6

D

A

,and is referred to in the following as relativistic Schro¨dingerequation

RSE

. The state vector

is a local sum

Whitneysum

8

of

N

one-particle wave functions

constructed as inEq.

5

. The RSE is Lorentz and gauge covariant

5

, andintroduces as a new object the Hamiltonian ﬁeld operator

H

, which is not a ﬁxed quantity as in conventional QM,

PHYSICAL REVIEW A

67

, 034101

2003

1050-2947/2003/67

3

/034101

4

/$20.00 ©2003 The American Physical Society

67

034101-1

but obeys its own set of ﬁeld equations. Furthermore, theHamiltonian is non-Hermitian (

H

H

¯

), which does notreﬂect the fact that dissipation is present in the system, butmerely that the local modulus (

¯

) of the wave function

is variable. For concrete applications, the Hamiltonian

H

may be considered as an

N

N

complex matrix of one-formstaking its values in the Lie algebra gl(

N

,

C

).As the relativistic analog of the von Neumann equation

2

, the relativistic von Neumann equation

RNE

was pro-posed:

D

I

i

c

I

•

H

¯

H

•

I

7

D

I

I

A

,

I

.The Hermitian intensity matrix

I

I

¯

may be formally con-sidered as the relativistic analog of the density matrix.The essential new feature of the RST is clearly the usageof a Hamiltonian one-form

H

as a dynamical object. Theﬁeld equations for

H

must be postulated in such a way thatsolutions to Eqs.

6

and

7

exist, which leads to the follow-ing curl equation:

D

H

D

H

i

c

H

,

H

i

c

F

,

8

referred to as the integrability condition.

F

is the ﬁeldstrength operator of the gauge ﬁeld

A

which carries theinteraction and is deﬁned as usual in Yang-Mills theory:

F

A

A

A

,

A

.

9

It obeys the Yang-Mills equations

D

F

4

*

J

,

10

(

*

is the coupling constant

which reduce to the usualMaxwell equations in the Abelian case (

*

e

2

/

c

).The source equation for

H

guarantees the conservationof certain quantitites

such as charges, etc.

and differs formatter with and without spin. For spinless particles, we have

D

H

i

c

H

H

i

c

M

c

2

11

and for spin-1/2 particles,

D

H

i

c

H

H

i

c

M

c

2

i

c

F

,

12

which is equivalent to

5

H

Mc

2

1

13

note that contracting Eq.

13

with

D

from the left yieldsEq.

12

.Until now, it was very difﬁcult to obtain solutions to thiscoupled system of ﬁeld equations. It was necessary to ﬁrstsolve the Hamiltonian dynamics

11

–

13

which subse-quently admits to solve the RSE

6

for

and the RNE

7

for

I

. However, the link between the matter ﬁelds

I

and

and

H

could have been obtained in a more direct way. Wewill show that both, the matter ﬁelds and the Hamiltonianmay be constructed from the same object, a group element

g

GL(

N

,

C

).The key point to obtain this result is the fact that theintegrability condition

8

can be solved by the followingansatz for

H

:

H

i

c

D

g

g

1

i

c

g

g

1

A

,

14

D

g

g

A

g

with

g

GL(

N

,

C

). Note that Eq.

14

constitutes locally thegeneral solution of Eq.

8

see Ref.

9

. The Hamiltonian

H

is therefore identiﬁed as being the sum of the Maurer-Cartan form (

g

)

g

1

of a group element

g

GL(

N

,

C

) andthe gauge ﬁeld

A

, which take their values in the Lie alge-bra gl(

N

,

C

) and in the gauge algebra, respectively, which isﬁxed by the type of interaction. The knowledge of the gen-eral form of

H

14

makes it possible to solve the RSE

6

and the RNE

7

directly, which yields for the RSE

g

*

15

(

*

being a constant complex

N

vector

and

I

gg

*

g

¯

16

for the RNE (

g

*

being a constant Hermitian

N

N

matrix

.The adjoint operator

g

¯

is the Hermitian conjugate

g

†

multi-plied by a constant unitary matrix

in the case of Klein-Gordon

KG

particles, this unitary matrix is

1

, and for Diracparticles, it is

0

). By use of the ansatz

14

, one ﬁnds thatthe conservation equation

11

is satisﬁed by putting

D

D

g

Mc

2

g

0,

17

where the mass operator

M

has been set proportional tounity (

M

1

for indistinguishable particles

, and for satisfy-ing Eq.

13

, one can put

i

D

g

Mcg

,

18

which are nothing else than the Klein-Gordon and Diracequations for a group element

g

instead of a complex scalar

or a Dirac spinor

. To recover the usual KG and Diracequations, it is sufﬁcient to let the operator equations

17

and

18

act upon the constant element

*

and exploit thedeﬁniton of the wave function

15

.Although the main concern of our paper are the RSTstates

5

, which constitute a subset of the pure states, itshould be noticed that it is posssible to distinguish

as inconventional quantum mechanics

between pure states andmixtures in RST by using the following criterion

10

:

BRIEF REPORTS PHYSICAL REVIEW A

67

, 034101

2003

034101-2

det

I

0 : positive mixtures

0 : pure states

0 : negative mixtures

19

in conventional QM, one considers only the positive mix-tures

. Although the intensity matrix is a local quantity, vary-ing from one space-time point to another space-time point,the sign of det

I

is always ﬁxed, as can be seen immediatelyfrom Eq.

16

:det

I

det

g g

*

g

¯

det

g

2

det

g

*

,

20

such that det

I

depends only on the sign of the constantdet(

g

*

). A pure state

det

I

0) can therefore only be ap-proached by a mixture if det(

g

)

⇒

0 in a region of space-time.Most of the recent papers on RST have been consideringmixture conﬁgurations

10,11

. Clearly, the relationship be-tween mixtures and pure states is very important and inter-esting, however, if one wants to link RST and conventionalQM, it is more instructive to consider a very simple caseﬁrst, namely, that of two particles with electromagnetic in-teractions approximated by a pure state of the form

5

be-ing the equivalent of the product state

4

of conventionalQM

.In conventional QM, the problem of two bound particlesin the ﬁeld of a nucleus

with charge

Z

) is given by theSchro¨dinger equation

1

and the following Hamiltonian

H ˆ

:

H ˆ

2

2

m

1

2

Ze

2

x

1

Ze

2

x

2

e

2

x

1

x

2

.

21

To get a lowest-order approximative solution to Eq.

1

, letus assume that this solution may be written as a product stateof the form

4

. The optimal single-particle wave functions

1

and

2

are then determined by minimizing the energyfunctional

E

H ˆ

constructed from the static Schro¨-dinger equation

E

H ˆ

22

using the ansatz

4

for

in time-independent form

see,e.g., Ref.

12

. The constraint that the one-particle wavefunctions have to be normalized to unity

i

(

x

)

2

dV

1

is taken into account by adding Lagrangian multipliers

i

,such that the functional

F

to be minimized is of the follow-ing form:

F

H ˆ

i

i

i

x

2

dV

1

.

23

The result of this variation process are the Hartree equations

2

2

M

i

Ze

2

x

i

V

i

x

i

i

x

i

i

i

x

i

,

24

with the potentials

V

i

being deﬁned as

V

i

x

i

j

i

e

2

x

i

x

j

j

x

j

2

d

3

x

j

.

25

For our special problem of two particles, we put (

i

,

j

1,2).The Lagrangian parameters

i

are interpreted as the ion-ization energy of the

i

th particle under the assumption thatall the other one-particle states remain unchanged

Koop-mans’ theorem

13

. The Hartree equations

24

are localequations for the

i

, i.e., involve only quantities at the samespace point

x

x

i

(

i

1, . . . ,

N

). However, they involve po-tentials which depend on an integration of the other wavefunctions

j

(

j

i

) over the whole three-space. This is whythe potentials

25

are considered as nonlocal quantities bysome authors. These integrals may however be considered asbeing derived from a certain form of

local

Maxwell equa-tions

see below

.How is the same problem treated in RST? Again, we re-strict ourselves to the case of two particles. We then special-ize the group element

g

to a 2

2 matrix, put one column tozero and retain only the other one. Equation

17

is thenreduced to the following vector equation:

A

A

1

2

Mc

2

1

2

0.

26

We now specialize the gauge ﬁeld to the case of the electro-magnetic interactions. We put

14

A

ie

c

A

2

00

A

1

ie

c

A

2

P

1

A

1

P

2

27

and using the Yang-Mills equations

10

in component form,we ﬁnd

F

i

4

*

j

i

j

(ex)

,

28

(

i

1,2). The conserved currents

j

i

can be derived from theﬁeld equations

26

and are given by

j

i

i

2

Mc

i

*

i

i

i

*

2

ie

cA

j

i

i

*

,

29

(

i

,

j

1,2;

i

j

). The external current

j

(ex)

(

j

0(ex)

,

j

(ex)

) isgenerated by the static point charge of the nucleus

j

(ex)

j

0(ex)

Z

(

x

),

j

(ex)

0

. By using the ansatz

27

for

A

, the self-energy problem is avoided

for more details onthis point, see Ref.

14

. Using the Lorentz gauge condition(

A

i

0), we get two wave equations from Eq.

28

A

i

4

e

j

i

j

(ex)

.

30

The equations for the matter ﬁelds

26

and the gauge ﬁelds

30

constitute the set of relativistic wave equations whichhave to be solved in the RST approach. Note that both mag-netic as well as retardation effects are included into theseequations, whereas the exchange interactions are neglectedby the simpliﬁed ansatz

5

.

BRIEF REPORTS PHYSICAL REVIEW A

67

, 034101

2003

034101-3

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.

1 hundred reads

keshav_prasad_1 liked this

- Read and print without ads
- Download to keep your version
- Edit, email or read offline

© Copyright 2015 Scribd Inc.

Language

Choose the language in which you want to experience Scribd:

Sign in with Facebook

Sorry, we are unable to log you in via Facebook at this time. Please try again later.

or

Password Reset Email Sent

Join with Facebook

Sorry, we are unable to log you in via Facebook at this time. Please try again later.

or

By joining, you agree to our

read free for two weeks

Unlimited access to more than

one million books

one million books

Personalized recommendations

based on books you love

based on books you love

Syncing across all your devices

Join with Facebook

or Join with emailSorry, we are unable to log you in via Facebook at this time. Please try again later.

Already a member? Sign in.

By joining, you agree to our

to download

Unlimited access to more than

one million books

one million books

Personalized recommendations

based on books you love

based on books you love

Syncing across all your devices

Continue with Facebook

Sign inJoin with emailSorry, we are unable to log you in via Facebook at this time. Please try again later.

By joining, you agree to our

Are you sure?

This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

CANCEL

OK

You've been reading!

NO, THANKS

OK

scribd