Position and momentum (basic stuff)

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter broegger
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Momentum Position
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concepts of position and momentum in quantum mechanics, particularly focusing on the representation of wave functions and their implications for observable distributions. Participants explore the relationship between position and momentum distributions, the nature of wave functions, and the preferences for different representations in various fields of physics.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant notes that a free particle with an initial localized position (Dirac delta function) leads to a uniform momentum distribution, raising questions about how the momentum distribution evolves over time according to the Schrödinger equation.
  • Another participant argues that there is no inherent preference for the position observable in quantum mechanics, suggesting that the preference arises from the nature of potentials in the Hamiltonian.
  • A different participant hints at the mathematical representation of wave functions, mentioning that a delta function wave function at time t=0 can be expressed using a Gaussian integral for general time.
  • Some participants discuss the use of momentum space representations in various contexts, noting that while configuration space methods are often used for bound state problems, momentum space methods are preferred for scattering problems.
  • One participant elaborates on the advantages of using momentum basis in condensed matter physics, particularly in simplifying differential equations related to particle dynamics in uniform fields.
  • There is a recurring question about the existence of equivalent "momentum-based" wave functions that could yield position distributions upon Fourier transformation, with some participants expressing uncertainty about their existence.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the preference for position versus momentum representations, with some arguing for the abstract nature of quantum mechanics while others highlight practical considerations in specific fields. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the existence of equivalent wave functions for all observables.

Contextual Notes

Participants mention the dependence of certain arguments on the definitions of wave functions and the specific contexts in which different representations are used, such as atomic versus condensed matter physics. There are also references to unresolved mathematical steps in the evolution of wave functions.

broegger
Messages
257
Reaction score
0
I was just reading about the free particle and how it can be represented as a superposition of momentum eigenstates and so on. I came to think about this:

Let's say we have free particle whose initial state is a Dirac delta function type of thing (localized position). The momentum distribution will then be a uniform distribution over all values. As time goes on the wave function will spread out according to the Schrödinger equation. But what happens to the momentum distribution; does it become more localized? It's just the Fourier Transform of the wave function, right?

This leads me to another question. The wave function, [tex]\Psi[/tex], seems to have some sort of preference for the "position" observable (I mean, when you take the norm-square, you get the position-distribution, you have to Fourier Transform it to get the momentum distribution and so on). Couldn't you have an equivalent "momentum-based" wave function, so that when you Fourier Transform this wave function you get the position distribution. Indeed, couldn't you have such equivalent wave functions for all observables (maybe there is, I've never met them)?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
broegger said:
This leads me to another question. The wave function, [tex]\Psi[/tex], seems to have some sort of preference for the "position" observable (I mean, when you take the norm-square, you get the position-distribution, you have to Fourier Transform it to get the momentum distribution and so on). Couldn't you have an equivalent "momentum-based" wave function, so that when you Fourier Transform this wave function you get the position distribution. Indeed, couldn't you have such equivalent wave functions for all observables (maybe there is, I've never met them)?

I'll let someone else handle the first part.
There is no preference whatsoever,QM is very abstract.However,potentials (which would enter the Hamiltonian) are not.They depend in general on [itex]\hat{q}[/itex] ...So that's why people prefer coordinate representation,especially in atomic physics...

Daniel.
 
Here's a hint or two about how to answer your first question. First, past t=0, a free particle wave function will be exp( +i px - i Et) -- take your pick of energy. E = p*p/2m is the easist. For general t, the wavefunction that's a delta at t=0, involves a Gaussian integral, which can be done.

People use momentum space representations all the time -- from Quantum Field Theory to basic QM. Configuration space methods tend to be associated with bound state problems, while momentum space methods tend to be associated with scattering problems.
 
dextercioby said:
...So that's why people prefer coordinate representation,especially in atomic physics...

In contrast, in condensed matter physics, almost everything is done in the momentum (or really the k-vector) basis. Usually the very first thing people do is Fourier transform the potential so we can write down Bloch states and such.

broegger said:
Couldn't you have an equivalent "momentum-based" wave function, so that when you Fourier Transform this wave function you get the position distribution. Indeed, couldn't you have such equivalent wave functions for all observables (maybe there is, I've never met them)?

Some problems are easier in the momentum basis. For instance, consider a particle in a uniform field, such as within a capacitor, then you have
[tex]E \Psi = (\frac{P^2}{2m} + qFx) \Psi[/tex]
(using F for field so as to not confuse it with the energy E.)

In position basis, we'd take P -> -i hbar d/dx, but this generates a 2nd order differential equation. However, if we go to the momentum basis, where P is just a coordinate, then x becomes +i hbar d/dp, and this is a first order differential equation.

In condensed matter, working with many-particle wave functions, it's typically common to think of things in terms of an occupation number basis. Thanks to the Pauli exclusion principle, when dealing with electrons only one electron can occupy each quantum state, so you can express the state vector (or wave function) in terms of how many particles occupy each state (0 or 1).
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
6K
  • · Replies 75 ·
3
Replies
75
Views
6K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K