1
$\begingroup$

Suppose we have two slowly moving (effectively static) masses $m_1,m_2$, interacting through gravity, that are not occupying a definite state of position i.e. that matter is being treated quantum mechanically but non-relativistically.

My question is when might one be able to justify using a quantum interaction potential of the form

$$\hat{V}(\hat{r}) = -\frac{Gm_1m_2}{|\hat{r}|},$$

in the Hamiltonian, where $\hat{r}$ describes the relative distance between the masses as an operator-valued quantity?

Relatedly, I have followed the derivation (here) of the Newtonian potential from the non-relativistic limit of the linearised gravity (via tree level graviton scattering) but it is not clear to me whether the potential that arises in this derivation is quantised in the sense above, or not. If not, is there a way to obtain the quantised Newtonian potential above directly from the linearised gravity field theory? Similar questions apply to the quantised Coulomb potential in NRQED.

Long story short, any information on/justification for the applicability of this Newtonian potential for calculations in the non-relativistic matter regime would be great! Happy to add further details upon request.

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ Minor comment to the post (v1): Please consider to mention explicitly author, title, etc. of link, so it is possible to reconstruct link in case of link rot. $\endgroup$
    – Qmechanic
    Commented May 30 at 3:49

1 Answer 1

0
$\begingroup$

Let me try to approach this description purely from a quantum mechanical (and therefore a QFT point of view) for gravity. Newton's potential is seen as the tree-level Feynman diagram in quantum gravity. The tree level Feynman diagram can be calculated as \begin{equation} i\mathcal{M}(q) = \tau_{\rho\sigma}(k_1,k_2;m_1)\frac{i\mathcal{P}^{\rho\sigma\alpha\beta}}{q^2}\tau_{\alpha\beta}(k_3,k_4;m_2) \end{equation} where $\tau_{\mu\nu}$ is the 3-point vertex for 2 scalar and 1 graviton interaction and \begin{equation} \mathcal{P}^{\rho\sigma\alpha\beta} = \frac{1}{2}\left(\eta^{\rho\alpha}\eta^{\sigma\beta} + \eta^{\rho\beta}\eta^{\sigma\alpha} - \eta^{\rho\sigma}\eta^{\alpha\beta}\right) \end{equation} I suppose I can also write down the 3-vertex which is (if I can recall from memory) \begin{equation} \tau^{\mu\nu}(k_1,k_2;m) = -\frac{i\kappa}{2}\left(k_1^\mu k_2^\nu + k_1^\nu k_2^\mu - \eta^{\mu\nu}(k_1\cdot k_2 - m^2)\right). \end{equation} After using these Feynman rules and performing contractions you get a large mess. The way to reduce it is to consider a particular time-slice in the Feynman diagram such that $k_1\cdot k_2 = m_1^2$, $k_1\cdot k_3 = m_1 m_2$ and $q^2 = -\mathbf{q}^2$ (and similarly for the rest). Once you do this you should find something that looks like \begin{equation} i\mathcal{M}(\mathbf{q}) = \frac{im_1m_2\kappa^2}{2\mathbf{q}^2} \end{equation} (modulo a minus sign I may have forgotten). I should let you know that here $\kappa^2 = 32\pi G$ where $G$ is Newton's constant. The way to Fourier transform this matrix element (which is the full amplitude at tree level since we didn't have to consider any information about the helicity) is \begin{equation} V(r) = \frac{1}{2m_1}\frac{1}{2m_2}\int\frac{d^3q}{(2\pi)^3}\mathcal{M}(\mathbf{q})e^{i\mathbf{q}\cdot\mathbf{r}}. \end{equation} At the end of this long calculation, you see that you started with a quantum mechanical theory, and after a few assumption, namely one that reduces you to the IR limit of the theory, we recover Newton's potential. Now, with this exact same formalism, you can derive quantum mechanical corrections to Newton's potential, namely of the form \begin{equation} V(r) = -\frac{Gm_1m_2}{r} + a\frac{G^2\hbar}{r^2} \end{equation} where $a$ depends upon what matter you put into the 1-loop correction. It turns out that in pure gravity, $a = 41/10\pi$. This factor changes when you include more and more matter. So, the loop-correction is a seriously hard-calculated quantum mechanical calculation and prediction, but we also derived Newton's potential from this manner as well.

Now, this was all QFT, but we can do something similar with basic quantum mechanics, namely to include Newton's potential into your Schrodinger equation \begin{equation} i\hbar\frac{\partial\psi}{\partial t} = -\frac{\hbar^2}{2m}\nabla^2\psi + V\psi + m\phi\psi \end{equation} where $V$ is some ordinary potential and $\phi$ is the gravitational potential. The solution leads to the Schrodinger-Newtons equation. You can derive that the stationary ground state has a width of $a_0\sim \hbar^2/Gm^3$.

Hopefully this answers your overall question(s).

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ Hi, thanks for the summary. I'm well aware of this calculation in linearised gravity - my trouble is that in the 5th equation down, $V(r)$ does not appear to be an operator. Somehow, in taking the non-relativistic limit, the resulting expression for V(r) becomes classical. My question is explicitly about whether we can arrive at $V(\hat{r})$ in some direct way. Or to motivate the usage of the quantised Newtonian potential. Any insight on that question would be great, thanks! $\endgroup$ Commented May 29 at 21:30
  • $\begingroup$ I really do see your question now; in my opinion, whenever I work with operators, it is when going from the classical Hamiltonian to the quantum, but I always work with the path integral, and the operators never need to appear except as insertions into the path integral. You have a really interesting question though. Something that may be worth looking into is how the S-matrix is formulated and slowly track through how the insertion of operators eventually turns into real matrix elements. There may be something towards your answer there. $\endgroup$
    – MathZilla
    Commented May 30 at 0:39

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