Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

International Conference on Ultrafast Phenomena

Two ways to calculate momentum expectation values with different quantum probability and flux densities

Thomas Schaupp, Klaus Renziehausen, Ingo Barth, Volker Engel

Published Jan 1, 2022• 0 citations
Publisher

Abstract

Using the Ehrenfest theorem, two possibilites are regarded to calculate momentum expectation values. They lead to different quantum probability and flux densities being illustrated with numerical results from a model for coupled electron-nuclear motion.
DOI
10.1364/up.2022.w4a.18

Related papers

On the Ehrenfest theorem of quantum mechanics

Gero Friesecke

We give a mathematically rigorous derivation of Ehrenfest’s equations for the evolution of position and momentum expectation values, under general and natural assumptions which include atomic and molecular Hamiltonians with Coulomb interactions. 1

•Aug 4, 2013•14 citations

On the Ehrenfest theorem of quantum mechanics

Gero Friesecke, Mario Koppen

We give a mathematically rigorous derivation of Ehrenfest’s equations for the evolution of position and momentum expectation values under general and natural assumptions which include atomic and molecular Hamiltonians with Coulomb interactions.

arXiv:0907.1877•Journal of Mathematical Physics•Aug 1, 2009•17 citations

Time-dependent momentum expectation values from different quantum probability and flux densities

Thomas Schaupp, Klaus Renziehausen, Ingo Barth +1 more

Based on the Ehrenfest theorem, the time-dependent expectation value of a momentum operator can be evaluated equivalently in two ways. The integrals appearing in the expressions are taken over two different functions. In one case, the integrand is the quantum mechanical flux density j̲, and in the other, a different quantity j̲̃ appears, which also has the units of a flux density. The quantum flux density j̲ is related to the probability density ρ via the continuity equation, and j̲̃ may as well be used to define a density ρ̃ that fulfills a continuity equation. Employing a model for the coupled dynamics of an electron and a proton, we document the properties of the densities and flux densities. It is shown that although the mean momentum derived from the two quantities is identical, the various functions exhibit a very different coordinate and time-dependence. In particular, it is found that the flux density j̲̃ directly monitors temporal changes in the probability density, and the density ρ̃ carries information about wave packet dispersion occurring in different spatial directions.

The Journal of Chemical Physics•Feb 11, 2021•7 citations

Polaron formation: Ehrenfest dynamics vs. exact results

Guangqi Li, Bijan Movaghar, Abraham Nitzan +1 more

We use a one-dimensional tight binding model with an impurity site characterized by electron-vibration coupling, to describe electron transfer and localization at zero temperature, aiming to examine the process of polaron formation in this system. In particular we focus on comparing a semiclassical approach that describes nuclear motion in this many vibronic-states system on the Ehrenfest dynamics level to a numerically exact fully quantum calculation based on the Bonca-Trugman method [J. Bonča and S. A. Trugman, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 2566 (1995)]. In both approaches, thermal relaxation in the nuclear subspace is implemented in equivalent approximate ways: In the Ehrenfest calculation the uncoupled (to the electronic subsystem) motion of the classical (harmonic) oscillator is simply damped as would be implied by coupling to a Markovian zero temperature bath. In the quantum calculation, thermal relaxation is implemented by augmenting the Liouville equation for the oscillator density matrix with kinetic terms that account for the same relaxation. In both cases we calculate the probability to trap the electron by forming a polaron and the probability that it escapes to infinity. Comparing these calculations, we find that while both result in similar long time yields for these processes, the Ehrenfest-dynamics based calculation fails to account for the correct time scale for the polaron formation. This failure results, as usual, from the fact that at the early stage of polaron formation the classical nuclear dynamics takes place on an unphysical average potential surface that reflects the distributed electronic population in the system, while the quantum calculation accounts fully for correlations between the electronic and vibrational subsystems.

arXiv:1210.7234•The Journal of Chemical Physics•Jan 28, 2013•28 citations

Asymmetry of the Aharonov-Bohm diffraction pattern and Ehrenfest’s theorem

Donald H. Kobe, Valdir C. Aguilera-Navarro, Regina Maria Ricotta

The electron-diffraction pattern for two slits with magnetic flux confined to an inaccessible region between them is calculated. The Aharonov-Bohm effect gives a diffraction pattern that is asymmetric but has a symmetric envelope. In general, both the expected displacement and the kinetic momentum of the electron are nonzero as a consequence of the asymmetry. Nevertheless, Ehrenfest's theorems and the conservation of momentum are satisfied.

Physical Review A•May 1, 1992•10 citations

New variational bounds on expectation values (in quantum mechanics)

Michael Fielding Barnsley, Peter D. Robinson

New variational bounds on quantum mechanical expectation values are presented. An illustrative calculation for helium gives encouraging accuracy.

Journal of Physics A Mathematical and General•Oct 1, 1975•1 citation
Based on the Ehrenfest theorem, the time-dependent expectation value of a momentum operator can be evaluated equivalently in two ways. The integrals appearing in the expressions are taken over two different functions. In one case, the integrand is the quantum mechanical flux density j̲, and in the other, a different quantity j̲̃ appears, which also has the units of a flux density. The quantum flux density j̲ is related to the probability density ρ via the continuity equation, and j̲̃ may as well be used to define a density ρ̃ that fulfills a continuity equation. Employing a model for the coupled dynamics of an electron and a proton, we document the properties of the densities and flux densities. It is shown that although the mean momentum derived from the two quantities is identical, the various functions exhibit a very different coordinate and time-dependence. In particular, it is found that the flux density j̲̃ directly monitors temporal changes in the probability density, and the density ρ̃ carries information about wave packet dispersion occurring in different spatial directions.
We use a one-dimensional tight binding model with an impurity site characterized by electron-vibration coupling, to describe electron transfer and localization at zero temperature, aiming to examine the process of polaron formation in this system. In particular we focus on comparing a semiclassical approach that describes nuclear motion in this many vibronic-states system on the Ehrenfest dynamics level to a numerically exact fully quantum calculation based on the Bonca-Trugman method [J. Bonča and S. A. Trugman, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 2566 (1995)]. In both approaches, thermal relaxation in the nuclear subspace is implemented in equivalent approximate ways: In the Ehrenfest calculation the uncoupled (to the electronic subsystem) motion of the classical (harmonic) oscillator is simply damped as would be implied by coupling to a Markovian zero temperature bath. In the quantum calculation, thermal relaxation is implemented by augmenting the Liouville equation for the oscillator density matrix with kinetic terms that account for the same relaxation. In both cases we calculate the probability to trap the electron by forming a polaron and the probability that it escapes to infinity. Comparing these calculations, we find that while both result in similar long time yields for these processes, the Ehrenfest-dynamics based calculation fails to account for the correct time scale for the polaron formation. This failure results, as usual, from the fact that at the early stage of polaron formation the classical nuclear dynamics takes place on an unphysical average potential surface that reflects the distributed electronic population in the system, while the quantum calculation accounts fully for correlations between the electronic and vibrational subsystems.