Eigenfunctions of Operators with Continuous Sprectra

Sferics
Messages
18
Reaction score
0
I'm self-studying Griffith's Intro to Quantum Mechanics, and on page 100 he makes the claim that the eigenfunctions of operators with continuous spectra are not normalizable. I can't see why this is necessarily true. Hopefully I am not missing something basic.

Thanks in advance.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The problem comes when you try and work out the meaning of "orthogonality". Say x and y are position eigenstates. Then we want
\langle x | y\rangle =\delta(x-y)
For discrete quantities, the Kronecker delta is either one or zero. The Dirac delta function used here has to be something more like an infinite weight, in the handwaving way we tend to talk about these things. As it's neither a function, nor a number, there's no sense in which we can just divide by \delta(0) to make the "norm" of such a state one.

Hope that helps.
 
Momentum eigenfunctions have a similar problem. Consider the function g defined by g(x)=A exp(ipx) for all x. This is a momentum "eigenfunction". If we plug it into the usual formula for the norm of a wavefunction, we get
$$\|g\|^2=\int(Ae^{ipx})^*(Ae^{ipx})dx=|A|^2\int dx.$$ There's clearly no choice of A that makes the right-hand side =1, since ##\int dx=\infty##.

Note that the space of wavefunctions is the semi-inner product space of square-integrable ##\mathbb C##-valued functions on ##\mathbb R##. What I did above shows that a momentum "eigenfunction" isn't square-integrable. This means that it's not actually a member of that semi-inner product space. So it's actually more appropriate to say that the momentum operator doesn't have any eigenfunctions. These functions are a kind of generalized eigenfunctions.
 
I understand that these two examples (which he provides) are not normalizable, but it almost seems as if it just happened that way. How do we know that, for any arbitrary operator with a continuous spectra, it's eigenfunctions are not normalizable?
 
For any continuous spectra, your "sum" over eigenstates will have to be an integral. This necessarily implies that the states will have a delta function norm.
If this isn't clear, think about some totally arbitrary continuum of values f, and think about how the identity operator acts on one specific eigenstate with eigenvalue f_0:
|f_0\rangle=\int df \langle f|f_0\rangle |f\rangle
 
Not an expert in QM. AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is quite different from the classical wave equation. The former is an equation for the dynamics of the state of a (quantum?) system, the latter is an equation for the dynamics of a (classical) degree of freedom. As a matter of fact, Schrödinger's equation is first order in time derivatives, while the classical wave equation is second order. But, AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is a wave equation; only its interpretation makes it non-classical...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
Is it possible, and fruitful, to use certain conceptual and technical tools from effective field theory (coarse-graining/integrating-out, power-counting, matching, RG) to think about the relationship between the fundamental (quantum) and the emergent (classical), both to account for the quasi-autonomy of the classical level and to quantify residual quantum corrections? By “emergent,” I mean the following: after integrating out fast/irrelevant quantum degrees of freedom (high-energy modes...
Back
Top