How Does Quantum Superposition Explain Probability in Wavefunctions?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Nick R
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Superposition
Click For Summary
Quantum superposition is explained through the decomposition of a wavefunction into its eigenfunctions, where the coefficients a_n relate to the probability of measuring a specific value of a physical quantity. The normalization condition ensures that the total probability sums to one, as expressed by the equation ∑ |a_n|² = 1. The orthogonality of eigenfunctions is crucial, as it allows for the elimination of cross terms during integration, simplifying the relationship between the wavefunction and probabilities. The discussion highlights the importance of understanding complex number identities in this context. Overall, the clarity on orthogonality and integration resolves confusion regarding the probability interpretation of wavefunctions.
Nick R
Messages
69
Reaction score
0
Hello, I am brand new to this stuff and am trying to get my head around it all. I've spent considerable time trying to understand this from Landau's book on the subject (chapter 1 of course).

I bet I'd get more answers by being more brief but I always find that asking the problem carefully sometimes helps me understand the problem better.

A wavefunction, which completely describes the states of a quantum object, can be decomposed in terms of its eigenfunctions,

\psi = \sum_{n} a_{n}\psi_{n}

Eigenvalues (maybe a physical quantity) correspond to the eigenfunctions by

\widehat{f}\psi_{n} = f_{n}\psi_{n}

Where \widehat{f} is the operator that corresponds to the quantity in question.

From this, we see that the value of a_{n} for a given eigenfunction in the decomposition is (somehow) related to the "probability" that the physical quantity f has the value f_{n}.

Given, is

\int |\psi_{n}(q)|^{2}dq = 1

and

\int |\psi(q)|^{2}dq = 1

How does it follow that |a_{n}|^{2} is the probability of the physical quantity f having the value f_{n}? The reasoning presented in the book is not clear to me - it is a sort of deductive reasoning that seems like guesswork.

Of course if this is a probability then,

\sum |a_{n}|^{2} = 1

I don't understand how this follows from the other things.

Here is why I am having a problem with this:

I can see it all works if the following is true:

\psi = a_{0}\psi_{0} + a_{1}\psi_{1} + ... + a_{n}\psi_{n}

|\psi| = \sqrt{|a_{0}\psi_{0}|^{2} + |a_{1}\psi_{1}|^{2} + ... + |a_{n}\psi_{n}|^{2}}

\int |\psi|^{2}dq = \int |a_{0}\psi_{0}|^{2}dq + \int |a_{1}\psi_{1}|^{2}dq + ... + \int |a_{n}\psi_{n}|^{2}dq

= |a_{0}|^{2}\int |\psi_{0}|^{2}dq + |a_{1}|^{2}\int |\psi_{1}|^{2}dq + ... + |a_{n}|^{2}\int |\psi_{n}|^{2}dq

Truth of this rests on the truth of two identities for complex numbers.

|(a+bi)(c+di)|^{2} = |a+bi|^{2}|c+di|^{2} IDENTITY ONE
According to my calculations this is true.

|(a+c) + (b+d)i|^{2} = |a+bi|^{2} + |c+di|^{2} IDENTITY TWO
According to my calculations this is false, unless there is a constraint 2ac = -2bd.

What is going on here? Is there some sort of constraint?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I think your missing piece of information is that the \psi_n are orthogonal, that is,

\int \psi^*_m(q) \psi_n(q) dq = 0

for m \ne n.

This is what let's you go from

<br /> \psi = a_{0}\psi_{0} + a_{1}\psi_{1} + ... + a_{n}\psi_{n}<br />

to

<br /> \int |\psi|^{2}dq = \int |a_{0}\psi_{0}|^{2}dq + \int |a_{1}\psi_{1}|^{2}dq + ... + \int |a_{n}\psi_{n}|^{2}dq<br />
 
Thanks I think that makes a lot of sense.

Basically "cross terms" looking similar to

\psi^*_m(q) \psi_n(q)

arise in the expression for |\psi|^{2}, and are eliminated when they are integrated, leaving only the terms looking like

\psi^*_n(q) \psi_n(q)

Thanks a bunch.
 
Time reversal invariant Hamiltonians must satisfy ##[H,\Theta]=0## where ##\Theta## is time reversal operator. However, in some texts (for example see Many-body Quantum Theory in Condensed Matter Physics an introduction, HENRIK BRUUS and KARSTEN FLENSBERG, Corrected version: 14 January 2016, section 7.1.4) the time reversal invariant condition is introduced as ##H=H^*##. How these two conditions are identical?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 49 ·
2
Replies
49
Views
5K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K