Given two scalar potentials denoted as
v(
r,
t) and
v(r',
t), which differ by more than an additive purely time-dependent term, the proof follows by showing that the density corresponding to each of the two scalar potentials, obtained by solving the Schrödinger equation, differ. The proof relies heavily on the assumption that the external potential can be expanded in a
Taylor series about the initial time. This is remedied by the
van Leeuwen theorem from 1999. The proof also assumes that the density vanishes at infinity, making it valid only for finite systems. The Runge–Gross proof first shows that there is a one-to-one mapping between external potentials and current densities by invoking the
Heisenberg equation of motion for the current density so as to relate time-derivatives of the current density to spatial derivatives of the external potential. Given this result, the continuity equation is used in a second step to relate time-derivatives of the electronic density to time-derivatives of the external potential. The assumption that the two potentials differ by more than an additive spatially independent term, and are expandable in a Taylor series, means that there exists an integer
k ≥ 0, such that :u_{k}(\mathbf{r})\equiv\left.\frac{\partial^k}{\partial t^k}\big(v(\mathbf{r},t)-v'(\mathbf{r},t)\big)\right|_{t=t_0} is not constant in space. This condition is used throughout the argument.
Step 1 From the
Heisenberg equation of motion, the time evolution of the
current density,
j(
r,
t), under the external potential
v(
r,
t) which determines the Hamiltonian
Hv, is :i\frac{\partial\mathbf j(\mathbf r,t)}{\partial t}=\langle\Psi(t)|[\hat{\mathbf{j}}(\mathbf r),\hat{H}_v(t)]|\Psi(t)\rangle. Introducing two potentials
v and
v, differing by more than an additive spatially constant term, and their corresponding current densities j and j'', the Heisenberg equation implies : \begin{align} i\left.\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\big(\mathbf j(\mathbf r,t)-\mathbf j'(\mathbf r,t) \big)\right|_{t=t_0} &= \langle\Psi(t_0)|[\hat{\mathbf{j}}(\mathbf r),\hat{H}_{v}(t_0)-\hat{H}_{v'}(t_0)]|\Psi(t_0)\rangle,\\ &=\langle\Psi(t_0)|[\hat{\mathbf{j}}(\mathbf r),\hat{V}(t_0)-\hat{V}'(t_0)]|\Psi(t_0)\rangle,\\ &= i\rho(\mathbf r,t_0)\nabla\big(v(\mathbf{r},t_0)-v'(\mathbf{r},t_0)\big). \end{align} The final line shows that if the two scalar potentials differ at the initial time by more than a spatially independent function, then the current densities that the potentials generate will differ infinitesimally after
t0. If the two potentials do not differ at
t0, but
uk(
r) ≠ 0 for some value of
k, then repeated application of the Heisenberg equation shows that :i^{k+1}\left.\frac{\partial^{k+1}}{\partial t^{k+1}}\big(\mathbf j(\mathbf r,t)-\mathbf j'(\mathbf r,t)\big)\right|_{t=t_0}=i\rho(\mathbf r,t)\nabla i^k\left.\frac{\partial^{k}}{\partial t^{k}}\big(v(\mathbf{r},t)-v'(\mathbf{r},t) \big)\right|_{t=t_0}, ensuring the current densities will differ from zero infinitesimally after
t0.
Step 2 The electronic density and current density are related by a
continuity equation of the form :\frac{\partial\rho(\mathbf r,t)}{\partial t}+\nabla\cdot\mathbf j(\mathbf r,t)=0. Repeated application of the continuity equation to the difference of the densities
ρ and
ρ, and current densities j and j'', yields : \begin{align} \left.\frac{\partial^{k+2}}{\partial t^{k+2}}(\rho(\mathbf r,t)-\rho'(\mathbf r,t))\right|_{t=t_0}&=-\nabla\cdot\left.\frac{\partial^{k+1}}{\partial t^{k+1}}\big(\mathbf j(\mathbf r,t)-\mathbf j'(\mathbf r,t)\big)\right|_{t=t_0},\\ &=-\nabla\cdot[\rho(\mathbf r,t_0)\nabla\left.\frac{\partial^k}{\partial t^k}\big(v(\mathbf{r},t_0)-v'(\mathbf{r},t_0)\big)\right|_{t=t_0}],\\ &=-\nabla\cdot[\rho(\mathbf r,t_0)\nabla u_k(\mathbf r)]. \end{align} The two densities will then differ if the right-hand side (RHS) is non-zero for some value of
k. The non-vanishing of the RHS follows by a
reductio ad absurdum argument. Assuming, contrary to our desired outcome, that :\nabla\cdot(\rho(\mathbf r,t_0)\nabla u_k(\mathbf r)) = 0, integrate over all space and apply Green's theorem. : \begin{align} 0&=\int\mathrm d\mathbf r\ u_k(\mathbf r)\nabla\cdot(\rho(\mathbf r,t_0)\nabla u_k(\mathbf r)),\\ &=-\int\mathrm d\mathbf r\ \rho(\mathbf r,t_0)(\nabla u_k(\mathbf r))^2+\frac{1}{2}\int \mathrm d\mathbf S\cdot\rho(\mathbf r,t_0)(\nabla u_k^2(\mathbf r)). \end{align} The second term is a
surface integral over an infinite sphere. Assuming that the density is zero at infinity (in finite systems, the density decays to zero exponentially) and that ∇
uk2(
r) increases slower than the density decays, the surface integral vanishes and, because of the non-negativity of the density, :\rho(\mathbf r,t_0)(\nabla u_k(\mathbf r))^2=0, implying that
uk is a constant, contradicting the original assumption and completing the proof. == Extensions ==