6
$\begingroup$

A single free charge (e.g. electron) $q$ fixed at the coordinate origin has the well-known Coulomb/electric potential

$$\phi(\vec r) = \frac q{4\pi\epsilon_0}\frac 1r \tag{A}$$

where $r=|\vec r|$ of course. However, according to Quantum Mechanics, a particle of mass $m$ cannot be truly fixed, best you can get is a Gaussian Wave Packet

$$\psi(\vec r, t) = \left({a \over a + i\hbar t/m}\right)^{3/2} \exp\left(- \frac{r^2}{2(a + i\hbar t/m)} \right) \tag{B}$$

with $a=2\Delta x(t=0)$. So the electric potential should become an expectation value smeared by that Gaussian, and my question is, does this smooth out the singularity at $r=0$?

$\endgroup$
0

2 Answers 2

5
$\begingroup$

Note that due to the time dependency of $\psi(\vec r, t)$ the retarted potential has to be considered. So we're looking for

$$\begin{align*} \langle\phi(\vec r, t)\rangle &= \int_{\mathbb R^3}d^3x \frac q{4\pi\epsilon_0}\frac{\Big|\psi(\vec x, t - \frac1c|\vec x - \vec r|))\Big|^2}{|\vec x - \vec r|} \quad\Bigg|\quad \vec x \to \vec x + \vec r \\ &= \int_{\mathbb R^3}d^3x \frac q{4\pi\epsilon_0}\frac{\Big|\psi(\vec x + \vec r, \overbrace{t - \frac xc}^{=:t_c(x)}))\Big|^2}{x} \\ &\stackrel{(B)}= \int_{\mathbb R^3} d^3x \underbrace{ \frac q{4\pi\epsilon_0}\overbrace{\Bigg|{a \over a + i\hbar t_c/m}}^{=\frac{a}{\sqrt{a^2+\hbar^2t_c^2/m^2}}=\frac{\sqrt{2a}}{\sigma}}\Bigg|^3}_{=:N} \frac{\exp\overbrace{\left(- \Re \frac{(\vec x + \vec r)^2}{(a + i\hbar t_c/m)} \right)}^{=-\frac{a(\vec x + \vec r)^2}{a^2+\hbar^2t_c^2/m^2} =: -\frac{(\vec x + \vec r)^2}{2\sigma^2(t_c)}}}{x} \end{align*}$$

The $x$-dependency of $t_c$ makes this a very nasty integral, so let's take the non-relativistic limit $c\to\infty$ such that $t_c(x) \to t$ (or alternatively, assume $m\to\infty$). Then we're looking for

$$\begin{align*} \langle\phi(\vec r,t)\rangle &= N\int_{\mathbb R^3}d^3x \frac{\exp\left(-\frac{(\vec x + \vec r)^2}{2\sigma^2}\right)}{x}. \tag{tk.C}\label{tk.C} \end{align*}$$

Note how for $\vec r=0$ we can use spherical coordinates to obtain

$$\begin{align*} \langle\phi(0,t)\rangle &= 4\pi N\int_0^\infty \rho^2 d\rho \frac{\exp\left(-\frac{\rho^2}{2\sigma^2}\right)}{\rho} \\ &= -4\pi\sigma^2 N\int_0^\infty d\rho\, \partial_\rho \exp\left(-\frac{\rho^2}{2\sigma^2}\right) \\ &= 4\pi\sigma^2 N = \frac{q\sqrt{2a}^3}{\epsilon_0\sigma} \end{align*}$$

which for $\sigma\neq0$ (that would yield a truly localized particle which would however diffuse infinitely the very next instant) is finite, thus the answer to the question is, considering uncertainty, there is no longer a singularity.

On paper, I actually calculated $\eqref{tk.C}$ to end up with a correction factor $\mathrm{erf}\left(\frac r{\sqrt{2\sigma^2}}\right)$ to the classical Coulomb potential (by using the Fourier transform w.r.t. $\vec r$, swapping integrals and integrating over $\sigma^2$), but that's too tedious to typeset for now, and there's a sign error in it somewhere...

$\endgroup$
6
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ An alternate view would be to consider that all elementary point particles, to which the singularity would be relevant, interact when they reach the HUP limits,e+e- to gammas,quark antiquark to gluon. Same charge has no chance to get that close anyway, will scatter away. $\endgroup$
    – anna v
    Commented Sep 9, 2015 at 18:36
  • $\begingroup$ Note that the time dependence of the wave packet you gave is not valid in the presence of a Coulomb potential, so it probably makes more sense to consider the expectation value with respect to $\psi(\vec{r},t = 0)$ in any case. $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 9, 2015 at 18:50
  • $\begingroup$ @MarkMitchison In the presence of another Coulomb potential, but not the charged particle's own one, or am I misunderstanding you? But anyway, yes, $t=0$ (or equivalently the mentioned $m\to\infty$) should suffice to prove the point $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 9, 2015 at 18:54
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Aha, sorry I misunderstood your intention in that case. Of course, the actual potential felt by another particle will not be given by the average you have calculated: this is only true in a mean-field approximation that neglects the correlations between the interacting particles. $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 9, 2015 at 18:58
  • $\begingroup$ @MarkMitchison That is true, and Anna's comment gives a nice explanation on why the singularity is (kind of) irrelevant then as well. Then again, I'm wondering how much of a difference it would make if the averaged potential were used instead... $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 9, 2015 at 19:04
1
$\begingroup$

I am supposed to answer your question to post here, but, really there is no way to answer your question. To answer a question you could have asked: Yes, electrons have to have smeared momentum. But, that is not the "real" issue. You could always put them in a potential well. If non-relativistic quantum mechanics "worked" then you could localize electrons / charge as well as you wanted, and so have as divergent a potential as you wanted. But, there are two objections to this, special relativistic quantum mechanics and general relativity. If you localize an electron into a small enough region - so small that its binding energy $E_b$ is close to its rest mass, $-E_b\sim m_ec^2$, you need to think of it as a relativistic quantum field, and as a mixture of electrons and positrons. These are treated using quantum electrodynamics, and (well) it would be reasonable in that context to claim that they have infinite (differently infinite, but still infinite) potential at the origin.

In general relativity, on the other hand, you would find if (say) you took a classical shell with a mass and a charge and a radius, and you slowly decreased the radius, then the potential, electric field and everything becomes very large, with very large energy or mass. When that mass becomes large enough, the system becomes a charged black hole. There is then no "origin" - just the surface of the black hole. The potential at the surface of the black hole is finite. And the smallest possible mass is huge, compared to an electron mass.

And, in reality, we have don't finally know. We don't know how to quantum mechanics and general relativity work together. So, finally we don't know.

$\endgroup$

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.