2
$\begingroup$

Suppose I have two free-particles $A,B$ whose positions evolve according to wave functions $\psi_A(x,t)$ and $\psi_B(x,t)$. I am interested in talking about the position vector from $A, B$, and ideally I would like to describe it according to a wave function lets call it $\psi_{B,A}(x,t)$.

In attempting to find this wave function I did the following:

  1. I note that $|\psi_{B,A}(x,t)|^2$ strictly describes the probability of the position vector from $A$ to $B$.

  2. I note that $$|\psi_{B,A}(x,t)|^2 = \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} |\psi_B(x-u, t)|^2 |\psi_A(u, t) |^2 \partial u $$ from a heuristic argument that for a particular position vector $x$ the probability density of this position vector should be equal to a weighted sum of all the densities of all pairs of vectors $u_1, u_2$ distributed according to B and A respectively, whose difference is $x$.

But now I want to get an expression for $\psi_{B,A}(x,t)$ not the square of its absolute value, and this is where it gets hard. I tried looking at the equation of (2) and breaking the absolute values into pairs of value and conjugate. Then I hoped to differentiate the expressions according time, and use schrodinger equation. But it seems impossible to me that I will ever be able to generate a linear PDE from this, let alone that I will generate a linear PDE that is purely a function of $x,t, \psi_{A,B}$.

One Idea:

I'm still toying with this one, but one could make an equation stating that the relative momentum from $A$ to $B$ is distributed according to $\phi_{B,A}$ which we define to be the fourier transform of $\psi_{B,A}$ and moreoever

$$ |\phi_{B,A} (p,t)|^2 = \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} |\phi_{B} (p -s, t)|^2 |\phi_A(s, t)|^2 \partial s$$ and see what that yields.

$\endgroup$
5
  • $\begingroup$ I also did a heuristic argument in my head right now and seems to me the equation you have under '2' should just be the desired relative wave function (not it's square). In fact it can't be the sauare as it's not even guaranteed to be real. $\endgroup$
    – zzz
    Commented Jun 30, 2018 at 21:19
  • $\begingroup$ Sorry I have a typo; the question now reflects the edits $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 30, 2018 at 22:00
  • $\begingroup$ Hmm... I can attach an image, I see the integrand you have squared. Try refreshing the page maybe, if it doesn’t change leave a comment. I refreshed mine and see it differently. I changed the format also just now. $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 30, 2018 at 22:08
  • $\begingroup$ Your integral in 2. does not define a distance. It has no units at all! For example, to compute the center of mass of a wavefunction ϕ(r) CM = ∫∞−∞ϕ(r) r ϕ*(r)dr I believe you want something similar except the distance of separation (rA-rB) ought to be sandwiched between the two wavefunctions, A and B. $\endgroup$
    – Gerry Harp
    Commented Jun 30, 2018 at 22:15
  • $\begingroup$ I wasn’t able to fully interpret your comment, so Ill just say is what I have is a probability distribution of the separation between two particles. What I want is some kind of underlying wave function to that probability distribution. When I read your comment, the units statement seemed to make sense (and I’m not sure how to address it yet). The remainder talks about expected value of center of mass, and loosely: expected value of separation, not the probability distribution of the separation. $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 30, 2018 at 22:27

1 Answer 1

3
$\begingroup$

Why not just redefine your variables? If $\vec{x}_{A}$ is the position of particle $A$ and $\vec{x}_{B}$ that of particle $B$, then $$\vec{x}_{A}=\vec{X}+\frac{m_{B}}{M}\vec{x} \qquad \text{and}\qquad\vec{x}_{B}=\vec{X}-\frac{m_{A}}{M}\vec{x}$$ where $m_{A}$ and $m_{B}$ are the masses of the particles, $M=m_{A}+m_{B}$ is the total mass of the system, $\vec{x}=\vec{x}_{A}-\vec{x}_{B}$ is the separation vector and

$$ \vec{X}=\frac{m_{A}\vec{x}_{A}+m_{B}\vec{x}_{B}}{M} $$

is the position of the center of mass.

If $\psi_{A}(\vec{x}_{A})$ describes particle $A$ and $\psi_{B}(\vec{x}_{B})$ describes particle $B$, the composite system is described by:

$$ \psi(\vec{x}_{A},\vec{x}_{B})=\psi_{A}(\vec{x}_{A})\,\psi_{B}(\vec{x}_{B})\quad\text{(distinguishable particles)}\\ \psi(\vec{x}_{A},\vec{x}_{B})=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\ (\psi_{A}(\vec{x}_{A})\,\psi_{B}(\vec{x}_{B})+\psi_{A}(\vec{x}_{B})\,\psi_{B}(\vec{x}_{A}))\quad\text{(indistinguishable particle, bosons)}\\ \psi(\vec{x}_{A},\vec{x}_{B})=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\ (\psi_{A}(\vec{x}_{A})\,\psi_{B}(\vec{x}_{B})-\psi_{A}(\vec{x}_{B})\,\psi_{B}(\vec{x}_{A}))\quad\text{(indistinguishable particle, fermions)} $$

(one should also interchange the spin labels for the indistinguishable cases). Let us assume for simplicity that the particles are distinguishable. Then you can define a wavefunction depending on the center of mass position and separation vector as

$$ \psi(\vec{X},\vec{x})=\psi_{A}\big(\vec{X}+\frac{m_{B}}{M}\vec{x}\big)\,\psi_{B}\big(\vec{X}-\frac{m_{A}}{M}\vec{x}\big) $$

and this answers your question. Notice that, in general, the wavefunction cannot be factorized into a $\vec{X}$-dependent and a $\vec{x}$-dependent part: this depends on the specific form of $\psi_{A}$ and $\psi_{B}$. However, you still have a well-defined probability for the variable $\vec{x}$:

$$ \rho(\vec{x})=\int d^{3}X\ |\psi(\vec{X},\vec{x})|^{2}=\int d^{3}X\ \bigg|\psi_{A}\big(\vec{X}+\frac{m_{B}}{M}\vec{x}\big)\,\psi_{B}\big(\vec{X}-\frac{m_{A}}{M}\vec{x}\big)\bigg|^{2} $$

Notice that this definition - at least for the case at hand - leads to the same result as your own's: define $\vec{U}=\vec{X}+\frac{m_{B}}{M}\vec{x}$ and change variables of integration from $\vec{X}$ to $\vec{U}$: you get

$$ \rho(\vec{x})=\int d^{3}U\ \bigg|\psi_{A}\big(\vec{U}\big)\,\psi_{B}\big(\vec{U}-\frac{m_{B}}{M}\vec{x}-\frac{m_{A}}{M}\vec{x}\big)\bigg|^{2}=\int d^{3}U\ \bigg|\psi_{A}\big(\vec{U}\big)\,\psi_{B}\big(\vec{U}-\vec{x}\big)\bigg|^{2} $$

where in the second step I only simplified $(m_{A}+m_{B})/M=1$. However the result only holds if the particles are distinguishable: if they are not, then $\psi(\vec{X},\vec{x})$ takes on one of the expressions that I wrote above for the bosonic or fermionic case, and my definition will lead to a different result. The one I wrote is the correct one because it is based on sound principles (composite wavefunctions for in/distinguishable particles) rather than on a heuristic.

On the other hand, it can be shown that if the potential acting on the system $A+B$ is the sum of a $\vec{X}$-dependent potential and a $\vec{x}$-dependent potential, then the eigenfunctions of the Hamiltonian indeed always factorize into a $\vec{X}$-dependent and a $\vec{x}$-dependent part: in this case you can always write the eigenfunctions as

$$ \psi(\vec{X},\vec{x})=\psi_{c.o.m.}(\vec{X})\ \psi_{sep.}(\vec{x}) $$

where each of the $\psi$'s on the R.H.S. separately solves the time-independent Schrödinger equation with the appropriate potential. In this case, $\psi_{sep.}(\vec{x})$ is the wavefunction you are looking for (and it may have specific simmetry properties in the indistinguishable case). For example, if the particles are acted upon by a force that only depends on the interparticle separation $\vec{x}$, you will find that

$$ \psi_{c.o.m.}(\vec{X})=e^{i\vec{P}\cdot \vec{X}/\hbar} $$

where $\vec{P}$ is the center of mass momentum of the system while $\psi_{sep.}(\vec{x})$ satisfies the Schrödinger equation

$$ \bigg[-\frac{\hbar^{2}}{2\mu}\ \nabla^{2}+V(\vec{x})\bigg]\psi_{sep.}(\vec{x})=E_{int}\ \psi_{sep.}(\vec{x}) $$

with $\mu=m_{A}m_{B}/M$ the reduced mass of the system.

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ Is my derivation wrong? Since when I’m reading your comment I find it odd that I can always have a well defined expression of $|\psi_{sep}|^2$ despite your answer which claims they aren’t even separable all the time. Where did I go wrong in my work? I’m also quite less skilled than you so I feel you would be better at figuring why I cant reconcile my approach with yours than I will $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 30, 2018 at 22:28
  • $\begingroup$ My conclusion is the same as yours: I wrote that the composite wavefunction is not separable in general; nonetheless, you can always define a density. Notice that my definition of $\rho(\vec{x})$ is actually the same as yours (I will add a proof of this claim in a minute, with an important caveat). However, such a density is not obtained by a separation of wavefunctions: it is obtained, as we said, by integration. You didn't strictly "go wrong", it is just that you based your derivation on a heuristic rather than on an accurate application of the principles of quantum mechanics. $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 30, 2018 at 22:44
  • $\begingroup$ Done. I added the proof and added some remarks at the end. However, in the end it gets down to the fact that $\rho(\vec{x})$ is in general different from $|\psi_{sep.}(\vec{x})|^{2}$ if there is an $\vec{X}$-dependence without separation, just as much as $\rho(\vec{x}_{A})$ is different from $|\psi_{A}(\vec{x}_{A})|^{2}$ if there is an $\vec{x}_{B}$-dependence without separation, $\psi(\vec{x}_{A},\vec{x}_{B})\neq \psi_{A}(\vec{x}_{A})\psi_{B}(\vec{x}_{B})$. $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 30, 2018 at 23:06

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.