Position variables in the wave function

SheikYerbouti
Messages
18
Reaction score
0
I would like some clarification as to the mathematical and physical definitions of the position variables in the wave function. I often see that it is treated as a variable independent of time; this is utilized in the separation of variables technique. However, the Schrodinger equation implies that this cannot be so. My argument (for the one-dimensional case) is as follows:

We can rearrange the Schrodinger equation to show that (\hat{H}- i\hbar \frac{\partial{}}{\partial{t}})\psi = 0. Since \psi is not identically zero, it follows that we can say that \hat{H} = i\hbar \frac{\partial{}}{\partial{t}} for all solutions to the Schrodinger equation. One consequence of this is that commutation relations between these two operators and a third must produce equivalent results; we will examine commutation with \hat{x}. On one hand, we have:
[\hat{x}, i\hbar \frac{\partial{}}{\partial{t}}]\psi = x i\hbar \frac{\partial{}}{\partial{t}}\psi - i\hbar \frac{\partial{}}{\partial{t}}(x\psi)
= x i\hbar \frac{\partial{}}{\partial{t}}\psi - x i\hbar \frac{\partial{}}{\partial{t}}\psi - \psi i\hbar \frac{\partial{}}{\partial{t}}x
= -\frac{\hbar}{i}\psi \frac{\partial{x}}{\partial{t}}.
On the other hand:
[\hat{x}, \hat{H}]\psi = x(-\frac{\hbar^2}{2m} \frac{\partial^2{}}{\partial{x}^2} + V)\psi - (-\frac{\hbar^2}{2m} \frac{\partial^2{}}{\partial{x}^2} + V)(x\psi)
= -x\frac{\hbar^2}{2m} \frac{\partial^2{\psi}}{\partial{x}^2} + Vx\psi + \frac{\hbar^2}{2m} \frac{\partial^2{(x\psi})}{\partial{x}^2} - Vx\psi = -x\frac{\hbar^2}{2m} \frac{\partial^2{\psi}}{\partial{x}^2} + \frac{\hbar^2}{2m} \frac{\partial^2{(x\psi})}{\partial{x}^2}
= -x\frac{\hbar^2}{2m} \frac{\partial^2{\psi}}{\partial{x}^2} + x\frac{\hbar^2}{2m} \frac{\partial^2{\psi}}{\partial{x}^2} + \frac{\hbar^2}{2m} \frac{\partial{\psi}}{\partial{x}} + \frac{\hbar^2}{2m} \frac{\partial{\psi}}{\partial{x}} = \frac{\hbar^2}{m} \frac{\partial{\psi}}{\partial{x}} = \frac{i\hbar}{m}\hat{p}\psi
From the equality of the operators, we must have:
\frac{i\hbar}{m}\hat{p}\psi = -\frac{\hbar}{i}\psi \frac{\partial{x}}{\partial{t}} \rightarrow \hat{p}\psi\ = m\psi \frac{\partial{x}}{\partial{t}}.

From this, it follows that if the position has no explicit time dependence, then the application of the momentum operator to any wave function must yield zero in all cases. This is clearly inconsistent with reality. This brings me to my questions: Where did I go wrong in the argument? If I did not make a mistake, how is the position variable defined and how are its use with the separation of variables technique and its explicit time dependence reconcileable?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
SheikYerbouti said:
we can say that \hat{H} = i\hbar \frac{\partial{}}{\partial{t}} for all solutions to the Schrodinger equation. One consequence of this is that commutation relations between these two operators and a third must produce equivalent results
No: this is true only if acting with the third operator on a solution of the Schrodinger equation yields another solution of the Schrodinger equation. If it does not, then acting with the third operator takes you out of the space of functions on which \hat{H} = i\hbar \frac{\partial{}}{\partial{t}} is true.

In particular, if ##\psi(x,t)## is a solution of the Schrodinger equation, then in general ##x\,\psi(x,t)## is not.
 
  • Like
Likes 1 person
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