0
$\begingroup$

I'm trying to show the Galilean invariance of the (time-dependent) Schrödinger equation by transforming as follows:

$$ \left\{\begin{eqnarray}\psi(\vec{r},t) &=& \psi(\vec{r}'-\vec{v}t,t),\\ \frac{\partial\psi(\vec{r},t)}{\partial t} & = & \frac{\partial\psi(\vec{r}'-\vec{v}t,t)}{\partial t}-\vec{v}\cdot\vec{\nabla}_{r'}\psi(\vec{r}'-\vec{v}t,t)\\ \vec{\nabla}_{r}\psi(\vec{r},t)&=&\nabla_{r'}\psi(\vec{r}'-\vec{v}t,t)\end{eqnarray}\right. $$ Which gives: $$ i\hbar\left[\frac{\partial}{\partial t}-\vec{v}\cdot\vec{\nabla}_{r'}\right]\psi(\vec{r}'-\vec{v}t,t)=\left[-\frac{\hbar^2}{2m}\nabla_{r'}^2+V(\vec{r}'-\vec{v}t,t)\right]\psi(\vec{r}'-\vec{v}t,t) $$

Now, supposedly, using the unitary transformation: $$ \psi(\vec{r}'-\vec{v}t,t)\to \psi(\vec{r}',t)\exp\left[\frac{i}{\hbar}m\vec{v}\cdot\vec{r}'+\frac{i}{\hbar}\frac{mv^2}{2}t\right], $$

it should be possible to recover the original form of the Schrödinger equation if there is no potential. When trying this, however, I can't seem to make it work. Is it just algebra or am I missing a crucial step here?

My lecturer also hinted that there was a physical reason that there may be no potential for Galilean invariance to hold. What is this reason and how can it intuitively be seen?

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Are you sure you copied the formula correctly. The argument of the $\exp$ function should be a scalar. However the first term is a vector ... $\endgroup$ – Fabian Aug 22 at 10:19
  • $\begingroup$ This approach is known as the Schrödinger group and is a low light of physics. The coordinate transformation depends on mass via a phase term. This overstretches the concept of a coordinate system. $\endgroup$ – my2cts Aug 22 at 10:22
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ A comment related to the potential part. There is no potential invariant to a dynamical subgroup (i.e. containing Lorentzian or Galileian boosts) of the full dynamical group. That would make the potential velocity dependent, hence a dissipative system. Quantum theories are constructed around conservative systems. $\endgroup$ – DanielC Aug 22 at 10:37
  • $\begingroup$ Possible duplicates: physics.stackexchange.com/q/56024/2451 and links therein. $\endgroup$ – Qmechanic Aug 22 at 10:39
  • $\begingroup$ @Fabian You're right, I mistyped. I edited to add a scalar product. $\endgroup$ – Simon Aug 22 at 13:34
1
$\begingroup$

I'm not convinced that your transformations are correct. This is one place where it is important, if $x=x'-vt$, to distinguish between $$ \left(\frac{\partial \psi}{\partial t}\right)_x $$ and $$ \left(\frac{\partial \psi}{\partial t}\right)_{x'}. $$ They are not the same thing. You notation is uclear as to what you are keeping fixed in your partials. I find it it easier to distinguish the derivatives by writing
$$ \xi=x-vt,\\ \tau=t. $$ Then the chain rule gives $$ \frac{\partial}{\partial t}= \frac{\partial}{\partial \tau}-v \frac{\partial}{\partial \xi}\\ \frac{\partial}{\partial x}= \frac{\partial}{\partial \xi} $$ where the derivative wrt $t$ keeps $x$ fixed, and the derivative wrt $\tau$ keeps $\xi$ fixed. Similarly the derivative wrt $x$ is at fixed $t$ and the derivative wrt $\xi$ is at fixed $\tau$. The equation in the frame in which the potential moves past you $$ i\hbar \frac{\partial \psi}{\partial t}=- \frac{\hbar^2}{2m} \frac{\partial^2 \psi}{\partial x^2}+V(x-vt)\psi $$ becomes, in the frame in which it is stationary $$ i\hbar\left( \frac{\partial }{\partial \tau}-v \frac{\partial }{\partial \xi}\right)\psi=- \frac{\hbar^2}{2m} \frac{\partial^2 \psi}{\partial \xi^2}+V(\xi)\psi. $$ You can now absorb the extra $\xi$ derivative into the phase transformation that you mention to find a wavefunction $\tilde \psi(\xi,\tau)$ which obeys $$ i\hbar \frac{\partial\tilde \psi }{\partial \tau}\psi=- \frac{\hbar^2}{2m} \frac{\partial^2 \tilde \psi}{\partial \xi^2}+V(\xi)\tilde \psi, $$ in which the only change in the Schroedinger equation is in the time dependence of the potential.

I think I have a minus sign in the convective time derivative compared to your transformed equation.

This transformation is discussed in Baym's quantum mechanic textbook.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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