## Normalization giving crazy long answers?...

I'm trying to normalize a function, which is pretty standard in QM. But I don't understand why I'm getting such a crazy answer. I know it is possible to normalize this function (because I was asked to do so), it's just not working.

harmoscforbidden_fail.mw

## Quantization of the Lorentz Force

by: Maple

This presentation is on an undergrad intermediate Quantum Mechanics topic. Tackling the problem within a computer algebra worksheet in the way shown below is actually the novelty, using the Physics package to formulate the problem with quantum operators and related algebra rules in tensor notation.

Quantization of the Lorentz Force

Pascal Szriftgiser1 and Edgardo S. Cheb-Terrab2

(1) Laboratoire PhLAM, UMR CNRS 8523, Université Lille 1, F-59655, France

(2) Maplesoft

We consider the case of a quantum, non-relativistic, particle with mass m and charge q evolving under the action of an arbitrary time-independent magnetic field where  is the vector potential. The Hamiltonian for this system is

where  is the momentum of the particle, and the force acting in this particle, also called the Lorentz force, is given by

where  is the quantized velocity of the particle, and all of  , , , ,  and  are Hermitian quantum operators representing observable quantities.

In the classic (non-quantum) case,  for such a particle in the absence of electrical field is given by

=  ,

Problem: Departing from the Hamiltonian, show that in the quantum case the Lorentz force is given by [1]

[1] Photons et atomes, Introduction à l'électrodynamique quantique, p. 179, Claude Cohen-Tannoudji, Jacques Dupont-Roc et Gilbert Grynberg - EDP Sciences janvier 1987.

Solution

We choose to tackle the problem in Heisenberg's picture of quantum mechanices, where the state of a system is static and only the quantum operators evolve in time according to

Also, the algebraic manipulations are simpler using tensor abstract notation instead of the standard 3D vector notation. We then start setting the framework for the problem, a system of coordinates X, indicating the dimension of the tensor space to be 3 and the metric Euclidean, and that we will use lowercaselatin letters to represent tensor indices. In addition, not necessary but for convenience, we set the lowercase latin i to represent the imaginary unit and we request automaticsimplification so that the output of everything comes automatically simplified in size.

 >
 >
 (1)

Next we indicate the letters we will use to represent the quantum operators with which we will work, and also the standard commutation rules between position and momentum, always the starting point when dealing with quantum mechanics problems

 >
 (2)

Note that we start not indicating  as Hermitian, in order to arrive at that result. The quantum operators , , and  are explicit functions of X, so to avoid redundant display of this functionality on the screen we use

 >
 (3)

Define now as tensors the quantum operators that we will use with tensorial notation (recalling: for these, Einstein's sum rule for repeated indices will be automatically applied when simplifying)

 >
 (4)

The Hamiltonian,

in tensorial notation, is given by

 >
 (5)

Generally speaking to arrive at   what we now need to do is

1) Express this Hamiltonian (5) in terms of the velocity

And, recalling that, in Heisenberg's picture, quantum operators evolve in time according to

2) Take the commutator of  with the velocity itself to obtain its time derivative and, from  , that commutator is already the force up to some constant factors.

To get in contact with the basic commutation rules between position and momentum behind quantum phenomena, the quantized velocity itself can be computed as the time derivative of the position operator, i.e as the commutator of  with

 >
 (6)

This expression for the velocity, that involves commutators between the potential , the position  and the momentum , can be simplified taking into account the basic quantum algebra rules between position and momentum. We assume that (X) can be decomposed into a formal power series (possibly infinite) of the , hence all the  commute between themselves as well as with all the

 >
 (7)

(Note: in some cases, this is not true, but those cases are beyond the scope of this worksheet.)

Add these rules to the algebra rules already set so that they are all taken into account when simplifying things

 >
 (8)
 >
 (9)

The right-hand side of (9) is then the kth component of the velocity tensor quantum operator, the relationship is the same as in the classical case

 >
 (10)

and with this the Hamiltonian (5) can now be rewritten in term of the velocity completing step 1)

 >
 (11)

For step 2), to compute

we need the commutator between the different components of the quantized velocity which, contrary to what happens in the classical case, do not commute. For this purpose, take the commutator between (10) with itself after replacing the free index

 >
 (12)

To simplify (12), we use the fact that if f  is a commutative mapping that can be decomposed into a formal power series in all the complex plan (which is assumed to be the case for all (X)), then

where  is the momentum operator along the  axis. This relation reads in tensor notation:

 >
 (13)

Add this rule to the rules previously set in order to automatically take it into account in (12)

 >
 (14)
 >
 (15)

Also add this other rule so that it is taken into account automatically

 >
 (16)

Recalling now the expression of the Hamiltonian (11) as a function of the velocity, one can compute the components of the force operator

 >
 (17)

Simplify this expression for the quantized force taking the quantum algebra rules (16) into account

 >
 (18)

It is not difficult to verify that this is the antisymmetrized vector product . Departing from  expressed using tensor notation,

 >
 (19)

and taking into acount that

multiply both sides of (19) by , getting

 >
 (20)
 >
 (21)

Finally, replacing the repeated index m by n

 >
 (22)

Likewise, for

multiplying (19), this time from the right instead of from the left, we get

 >
 (23)
 >
 (24)

Simplifying now the expression (18) for the quantized force taking into account (22) and (24) we get

 >
 (25)

i.e.

in tensor notation. Finally, we note that this operator is Hermitian as expected

 >
 (26)

Edgardo S. Cheb-Terrab
Physics, Differential Equations and Mathematical Functions, Maplesoft
Editor, Computer Physics Communications

## Quantum Mechanics: Schrödinger vs Heisenberg pictu...

by: Maple

The presentation below is on undergrad Quantum Mechanics. Tackling this topic within a computer algebra worksheet in the way it's done below, however, is an exciting novelty and illustrates well the level of abstraction that is now possible using the Physics package.

Quantum Mechanics: Schrödinger vs Heisenberg picture

Pascal Szriftgiser1 and Edgardo S. Cheb-Terrab2

(1) Laboratoire PhLAM, UMR CNRS 8523, Université Lille 1, F-59655, France

(2) Maplesoft

Within the Schrödinger picture of Quantum Mechanics, the time evolution of the state of a system, represented by a Ket , is determined by Schrödinger's equation:

where H, the Hamiltonian, as well as the quantum operators  representing observable quantities, are all time-independent.

Within the Heisenberg picture, a Ket  representing the state of the system does not evolve with time, but the operators representing observable quantities, and through them the Hamiltonian H, do.

Problem: Departing from Schrödinger's equation,

 a) Show that the expected value of a physical observable in Schrödinger's and Heisenberg's representations is the same, i.e. that

 b) Show that the evolution equation of an observable  in Heisenberg's picture, equivalent to Schrödinger's equation,  is given by:

where in the right-hand-side we see the commutator of  with the Hamiltonian of the system.

Solution: Let  and  respectively be operators representing one and the same observable quantity in Schrödinger's and Heisenberg's pictures, and H be the operator representing the Hamiltonian of a physical system. All of these operators are Hermitian. So we start by setting up the framework for this problem accordingly, including that the time t and Planck's constant are real. To automatically combine powers of the same base (happening frequently in what follows) we also set combinepowersofsamebase = true. The following input/output was obtained using the latest Physics update (Aug/31/2016) distributed on the Maplesoft R&D Physics webpage.

 >
 >
 (1)

Let's consider Schrödinger's equation

 >
 (2)

Now, H is time-independent, so (2) can be formally solved:  is obtained from the solution  at time , as follows:

 >
 (3)
 >
 (4)

To check that (4) is a solution of (2), substitute it in (2):

 >
 (5)

Next, to relate the Schrödinger and Heisenberg representations of an Hermitian operator O representing an observable physical quantity, recall that the value expected for this quantity at time t during a measurement is given by the mean value of the corresponding operator (i.e., bracketing it with the state of the system ).

So let  be an observable in the Schrödinger picture: its mean value is obtained by bracketing the operator with equation (4):

 >
 (6)

The composed operator within the bracket on the right-hand-side is the operator O in Heisenberg's picture,

 >
 (7)

Analogously, inverting this equation,

 >
 (8)

As an aside to the problem, we note from these two equations, and since the operator  is unitary (because H is Hermitian), that the switch between Schrödinger's and Heisenberg's pictures is accomplished through a unitary transformation.

Inserting now this value of  from (8) in the right-hand-side of (6), we get the answer to item a)

 >
 (9)

where, on the left-hand-side, the Ket representing the state of the system is evolving with time (Schrödinger's picture), while on the the right-hand-side the Ket is constant and it is , the operator representing an observable physical quantity, that evolves with time (Heisenberg picture). As expected, both pictures result in the same expected value for the physical quantity represented by .

To complete item b), the derivation of the evolution equation for , we take the time derivative of the equation (7):

 >
 (10)

To rewrite this equation in terms of the commutator  , it suffices to re-order the product  H   placing the exponential first:

 >
 (11)
 >
 (12)

Finally, to express the right-hand-side in terms of   instead of , we take the commutator of the equation (8) with the Hamiltonian

 >
 (13)

Combining these two expressions, we arrive at the expected result for b), the evolution equation of a given observable  in Heisenberg's picture

 >
 (14)

Edgardo S. Cheb-Terrab
Physics, Differential Equations and Mathematical Functions, Maplesoft
Editor, Computer Physics Communications

## Defining a quantum operator as a tensor – And...

by: Maple 2016

Hi,

In the following example I introduce some commutation rules that are standard in Quantum Mechanics. A major feature of the Maple Physics Package, is that it is possible to define tensors as Quantum Operators. This is of great interest because powerful tensor simplification rules can then be used in Quantum Mechanics. For an example, see the commutation rules of the components of the angular momentum operator in ?Physics,Examples. Here, I focus on a possible issue: when destroying all quantum operators, the pre-defined commutation rules still apply, which should not be the case. As shown in the post, this is link to the fact that these operators are also tensors.

 >
 (1)

 >

First, set a 3D Euclidian space

 >
 (2)

Define two rank 1 tensors

 >
 (3)

Now, further define these tensors as quantum operators and gives the usual commutation rule between position and momentum operators (Quantum Mechanics).

 >
 (4)

As expected:

 >
 (5)

Now, reset all the Hermitian operators, so that all quantum operators are destroyed. This is useful if, for instance, one needs to compare some the result with the commutative case.

 >
 (6)

As expected, there are no quantum operators anymore...

 >
 (7)

...so that the following expressions should commute (result should be true)

 >
 (8)

Result should be 0

 >
 (9)
 >
 (10)
 >

Below is just a copy & paste of the above section. The only difference, is that "" has been commented, so that and  are not a tensor. In that case, everything behaves as expected (but of course, the interesting feature of tensors is not available).

 >

First, set a 3D Euclidian space

 >
 (11)

#Define two rank 1 tensors

 >

Now, further define these tensors as quantum operators and gives the usual commutation rule between position and momentum operators (Quantum Mechanics)

 >
 (12)

As expected:

 >
 (13)

Now, reset all the Hermitian operators, so that all quantum operators are destroyed.

 >
 (14)

As expected, there are no quantum operators anymore...

 >
 (15)

...so that the following expressions should commute (result should be true)

 >
 (16)

Result should be 0

 >
 (17)
 >
 (18)
 >

## Computer Algebra in Theoretical Physics: the IOP...

by: Maple

Below is the worksheet with the whole material presented yesterday in the webinar, “Applying the power of computer algebra to theoretical physics”, broadcasted by the “Institute of Physics” (IOP, England). The material was very well received, rated 4.5 out of 5 (around 30 voters among the more than 300 attendants), and generated a lot of feedback. The webinar was recorded so that it is possible to watch it (for free, of course, click the link above, it will ask you for registration, though, that’s how IOP works).

Anyway, you can reproduce the presentation with the worksheet below (mw file linked at the end, or the corresponding pdf also linked with all the input lines executed). As usual, to reproduce the input/output you need to have installed the latest version of Physics, available in the Maplesoft R&D Physics webpage.

 Why computer algebra? ... and why computer algebra? We can concentrate more on the ideas instead of on the algebraic manipulations   We can extend results with ease   We can explore the mathematics surrounding a problem   We can share results in a reproducible way
 Representation issues that were preventing the use of computer algebra in Physics Notation and related mathematical methods that were missing: coordinate free representations for vectors and vectorial differential operators, covariant tensors distinguished from contravariant tensors, functional differentiation, relativity differential operators and sum rule for tensor contracted (repeated) indices Bras, Kets, projectors and all related to Dirac's notation in Quantum Mechanics   Inert representations of operations, mathematical functions, and related typesetting were missing:   inert versus active representations for mathematical operations ability to move from inert to active representations of computations and viceversa as necessary hand-like style for entering computations and textbook-like notation for displaying results   Key elements of the computational domain of theoretical physics were missing:   ability to handle products and derivatives involving commutative, anticommutative and noncommutative variables and functions ability to perform computations taking into account custom-defined algebra rules of different kinds (commutator, anticommutator and bracket rules, etc.)

Examples

 The Maple computer algebra environment

Classical Mechanics

 Inertia tensor for a triatomic molecule

Classical Field Theory

 *The field equations for the  model
 *Maxwell equations departing from the 4-dimensional Action for Electrodynamics
 *The Gross-Pitaevskii field equations for a quantum system of identical particles

Quantum mechanics

 *The quantum operator components of   satisfy
 Quantization of the energy of a particle in a magnetic field

Unitary Operators in Quantum Mechanics

 *Eigenvalues of an unitary operator and exponential of Hermitian operators

Properties of unitary operators

Consider two set of kets  and , each of them constituting a complete orthonormal basis of the same space.

One can always build an unitary operator  that maps one basis to the other, i.e.:

 *Verify that  implies on
 *Show that is unitary
 *Show that the matrix elements of  in the  and   basis are equal
 Show that  and have the same spectrum

Schrödinger equation and unitary transform

Consider a ket  that solves the time-dependant Schrödinger equation:

and consider

,

where  is a unitary operator.

Does  evolves according a Schrödinger equation

and if yes, which is the expression of ?

 Solution

Translation operators using Dirac notation

In this section, we focus on the operator

 Settings
 The Action (translation) of the operator  on a ket
 Action of  on an operator

General Relativity

 *Exact Solutions to Einstein's Equations

*"Physical Review D" 87, 044053 (2013)

Given the spacetime metric,

a) Compute the Ricci and Weyl scalars

b) Compute the trace of

where  is some function of the radial coordinate,  is the Ricci tensor,  is the covariant derivative operator and  is the stress-energy tensor

c) Compute the components of the traceless part of   of item b)

d) Compute an exact solution to the nonlinear system of differential equations conformed by the components of   obtained in c)

Background: paper from February/2013, "Withholding Potentials, Absence of Ghosts and Relationship between Minimal Dilatonic Gravity and f(R) Theories", by P. Fiziev.

 a) The Ricci and Weyl scalars
 b) The trace of
 b) The components of the traceless part of
 c) An exact solution for the nonlinear system of differential equations conformed by the components of

*The Equivalence problem between two metrics

From the "What is new in Physics in Maple 2016" page:

 In the Maple PDEtools package, you have the mathematical tools - including a complete symmetry approach - to work with the underlying [Einstein’s] partial differential equations. [By combining that functionality with the one in the Physics and Physics:-Tetrads package] you can also formulate and, depending on the metrics also resolve, the equivalence problem; that is: to answer whether or not, given two metrics, they can be obtained from each other by a transformation of coordinates, as well as compute the transformation.
 Example from: A. Karlhede, "A Review of the Geometrical Equivalence of Metrics in General Relativity", General Relativity and Gravitation, Vol. 12, No. 9, 1980
 *Equivalence for Schwarzschild metric (spherical and Krustal coordinates)

Tetrads and Weyl scalars in canonical form

Generally speaking a canonical form is obtained using transformations that leave invariant the tetrad metric in a tetrad system of references, so that theWeyl scalars are fixed as much as possible (conventionally, either equal to 0 or to 1).

Bringing a tetrad in canonical form is a relevant step in the tackling of the equivalence problem between two spacetime metrics.

The implementation is as in "General Relativity, an Einstein century survey", edited by S.W. Hawking (Cambridge) and W. Israel (U. Alberta, Canada), specifically Chapter 7 written by S. Chandrasekhar, page 388:

 Residual invariance Petrov type I 0 1 0 none Petrov type II 0 0 1 0 none Petrov type III 0 0 0 1 0 none Petrov type D 0 0 0 0 remains invariant under rotations of Class III Petrov type N 0 0 0 0 1 remains invariant under rotations of Class II

The transformations (rotations of the tetrad system of references) used are of Class I, II and III as defined in Chandrasekar's chapter - equations (7.79) in page 384, (7.83) and (7.84) in page 385. Transformations of Class I can be performed with the command Physics:-Tetrads:-TransformTetrad using the optional argument nullrotationwithfixedl_, of Class II using nullrotationwithfixedn_ and of Class III by calling TransformTetrad(spatialrotationsm_mb_plan, boostsn_l_plane), so with the two optional arguments simultaneously.

The determination of appropriate transformation parameters to be used in these rotations, as well as the sequence of transformations happens all automatically by using the optional argument, canonicalform of TransformTetrad .

 >
 (7.4.1)
 Petrov type I
 Petrov type II
 Petrov type III
 Petrov type N
 Petrov type D

Edgardo S. Cheb-Terrab
Physics, Differential Equations and Mathematical Functions, Maplesoft

## Add to the Physics:-Simplify and Physics:-Library:...

by: Maple

Partial rectification for the Physics:-Simplify and Physics:-Library:-SortProducts procedures dealing with Fermi annihilation/creation operators

This post will be useful for physicists dealing with Fermi annihilation/creation operators. Physics Package provides plenty of powerful tools for quantum operators handling, however some of them often fail to render correct result.  In particular incorrect behaviour with respect to Fermi annihilation/creation operators is observed for routines Simplify and SortProducts.  In this post I present my procedures  and  which partially solve these issues.

 Problems with Physics Package routines
 Short explanation of custom routines  and
 Weak points
 Final notes

## The Physics project at Maplesoft

by:

(Presentation in Spain a month ago with a full description of the project and its current status)

A computational environment for Physicists

"Algebraic manipulations in Physics and related numerical exploration and visualization come together within computer algebra systems"

 Project background
 Three reasons for the underuse of Computer Algebra Systems in Physics
 The Physics project goals
 Status of things in Maple 17
 Examples