The imaginary part of the wave function

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter LarryS
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the role of the imaginary part of the wave function in non-relativistic quantum mechanics (QM), specifically in the context of the Schrödinger Equation. Participants highlight that while many textbooks, such as Griffiths & Schroeter's "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" (3rd ed.), often emphasize the real part of the wave function, the imaginary component is crucial for accurately describing systems, especially in superpositions of energy eigenstates. The imaginary part cannot be derived solely from the real part, as it influences the time evolution of the probability density.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of non-relativistic quantum mechanics principles
  • Familiarity with the Schrödinger Equation and its solutions
  • Knowledge of complex numbers and their application in wave functions
  • Basic grasp of spherical harmonics and their role in quantum systems
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the implications of complex-valued wave functions in quantum mechanics
  • Explore the time-dependent Schrödinger Equation and its solutions
  • Investigate the role of imaginary components in quantum superposition
  • Learn about the effects of magnetic fields on wave functions and time reversal symmetry
USEFUL FOR

Quantum mechanics students, physicists, and researchers interested in the mathematical foundations of wave functions and their implications in quantum systems.

LarryS
Gold Member
Messages
359
Reaction score
33
TL;DR
How is the imaginary part of the wave function related to the real part?
In non-relativistic QM, the wave function is complex-valued. But in my experience, most of the books and lectures, when solving the Schrödinger Equation, focus only on the real part of the solution. Is that because the imaginary part of the solution can always be determined from the real part by applying a 90 phase shift?

Thanks in advance.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
LarryS said:
In non-relativistic QM, the wave function is complex-valued. But in my experience, most of the books and lectures, when solving the Schrödinger Equation, focus only on the real part of the solution.
I don't see that at all.
Consider, e.g., Griffiths & Schroeter, Introduction to Quantum Mechanics (3rd ed.) in which the authors solve for the wave functions of the hydrogen atom:
1766599058043.webp

Here the spherical harmonics ##Y^m_l\left(\theta,\phi\right)## are given by:
1766599319249.webp

The ##\psi_{nlm}## are clearly complex for all ##m\neq 0##.
What books are you finding that "focus only on the real part of the solution"?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: marcusl, PeterDonis and PeroK
We had a related discussion a while ago:
Cthugha said:
In chemistry, often real-valued orbitals are preferred, while in physics often complex-valued ones are used.
One can use different linear combinations of the spherical harmonics, combining the ## e^{+im\phi} ## and ## e^{-im\phi} ## terms into ## \sin m\phi ## and ## \cos m\phi ## terms. Chemists are rarely interested in systems with exact spherical symmetry.

The time-dependent Schrödinger equation has a companion that has ## i ## replaced by ## -i ##, describing a wave function evolving backwards in time. For systems invariant under time reversal the functions are identical, and the stationary states can be represented by real functions (## \Phi^* = \Phi ##). But if you wish you can also multiply by ## i ## and choose purely imaginary eigenfunctions. They represent exactly the same states.

This changes when magnetic fields are involved, because they destroy time reversal symmetry.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: LarryS
LarryS said:
TL;DR: How is the imaginary part of the wave function related to the real part?

In non-relativistic QM, the wave function is complex-valued. But in my experience, most of the books and lectures, when solving the Schrödinger Equation, focus only on the real part of the solution. Is that because the imaginary part of the solution can always be determined from the real part by applying a 90 phase shift?

Thanks in advance.
Introductory textbooks usually deal a lot with time-independent Hamiltonians of the form$$H=\frac{\mathbf{P}^2}{2 m}+V(\mathbf{x})\quad ,$$like potential wells, harmonic oscillator and the Hydrogen atom. The common practice is to look for energy eigenfunctions by separating variables, i.e. solutions of the form$$\psi_n(\mathbf{x},t)=\phi_n(\mathbf{x})\chi_n(t)\quad.$$This yields the time-independent equation$$-\frac{\hbar^2}{2 m}\nabla^2\phi_n+V\phi_n=E_n\phi_n$$which is real, and therefore we should not be surprised that it has real solutions. The other equation,$$i\hbar\frac{\partial\chi_n}{\partial t}=E_n\chi_n\quad,$$is solved by$$\chi_n=e^{-i \hbar E_n t}\quad,$$so it is just a "rigid rotation" of ##\psi_n## in the complex plane, and the probability density ##~|\psi_n|^2~## is constant in time.

Up to this point, the real parts may be regarded as "sufficient" for the physical content. But we also want wavefunctions ##\psi## that are superpositions of the ##\psi_n~##. If two or more different energy eigenvalues are involved (in the superposition), the imaginary parts make a difference, causing the probability density ##~|\psi|^2~## to change over time. So the additional information "carried" by the imaginary part is essential, and can not be extracted from the real part.

Edit: corrected typo in equation. Thanks to @renormalize for his remark in #5.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Nugatory, Spinnor, Steve4Physics and 4 others
JimWhoKnew said:
The common practice is to look for energy eigenfunctions by separating variables, i.e. solutions of the form$$\psi_n(\mathbf{x},t)=\phi_n(\mathbf{x})\chi_n(t)\quad.$$This yields the time-independent equation$$-\frac{\hbar^2}{2 m}\nabla^2\psi_n+V\psi_n=E_n\psi_n$$which is real, and therefore we should not be surprised that it has real solutions.
I think you meant to write:$$-\frac{\hbar^2}{2 m}\nabla^2\phi_n+V\phi_n=E_n\phi_n$$
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: JimWhoKnew
JimWhoKnew said:
$$\chi_n=e^{-i \hbar E_n t}\quad,$$
FWIW there is a typo'. It should be ##\chi_n=e^{-i \frac { E_n}{\hbar} t}##.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: JimWhoKnew

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K