Non-dimensionalization of Schrodinger equation

ShayanJ
Science Advisor
Insights Author
Messages
2,801
Reaction score
606
I had a course of computational physics in university. When the professor wanted to non-dimensiolize the Schrodinger equation, among other things, he changed the wave function using the relation |\psi(x)|^2 dx=|\phi(y)|^2 dy where y is the non-dimensionalized postion (y=\frac x a) and so \phi(y)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{a}} \psi(x). This seems reasonable to me because wave function has dimension of [L]^{-\frac 1 2} in one dimension. But when I search the internet for non-dimensionalization of Schrodinger equation, non of them do this step. Why? What's the point?
Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The *projective* Hilbert space structure of QT already makes the Schroedinger equation perfectly agnostic of any choice of unit or dimension. Units and dimensions are just linear factors of the amplitude, which are removed by stepping from vectors to rays. They come only back in if you label your measurement outcomes, i.e. they are a choice of how you map your eigenvalues to arbitrary scales.

Cheers,

Jazz
 
Jazzdude said:
The *projective* Hilbert space structure of QT already makes the Schroedinger equation perfectly agnostic of any choice of unit or dimension. Units and dimensions are just linear factors of the amplitude, which are removed by stepping from vectors to rays. They come only back in if you label your measurement outcomes, i.e. they are a choice of how you map your eigenvalues to arbitrary scales.

Cheers,

Jazz

I can understand that. But its just strange to think that you can multiply a wave function by e.g. m^\frac 1 2 to get another wave function on the same ray! That seems like treating units as they are complex numbers.
 
Shyan said:
I can understand that. But its just strange to think that you can multiply a wave function by e.g. m^\frac 1 2 to get another wave function on the same ray! That seems like treating units as they are complex numbers.

Yep, it seems strange. But that's exactly how it works and it is the only way to get a consistent construction. Remember that the the dimensionless probabilities that would motivate a unit or dimension for the wavefunction is defined as a fraction with the wavefunction in the numerator and the denominator. Any choice of unit cancels there and the probability is automatically dimensionless.

Cheers,

Jazz
 
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