Can Fourier Transformation be Used for Amplitude of a Free Particle?

karlsson
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
I hope this is the correct place for my question. I posted it here, because it`s from Peskin & Schroeder:
"Consider the amplitude for a free particle to propagate from \mathbf{x}_{0} to \mathbf{x} :

U(t)=\left\langle \mathbf{x}\right|e^{-iHt}\left|\mathbf{x_{0}}\right\rangle

In nonrelativistic quantum mechanics we have E=p^2/2m, so

U(t)&=&\left\langle \mathbf{x}\right|e^{-i(\mathbf{p}^{2}/2m)t}\left|\mathbf{x}_{0}\right\rangle

<br /> =\int\frac{d^{3}p}{(2\pi)^{3}}\left\langle \mathbf{x}\right|e^{-i(\mathbf{p}^{2}/2m)t}\left|\mathbf{p}\right\rangle \left\langle \mathbf{p}\right.\left|\mathbf{x_{0}}\right\rangle

<br /> =\frac{1}{(2\pi)^{3}}\int d^{3}p\, e^{-i(\mathbf{p}^{2}/2m)t}\cdot e^{i\mathbf{p}\cdot(\mathbf{x}-\mathbf{x}_{0})}<br />

<br /> =\left(\frac{m}{2\pi it}\right)^{3/2}\, e^{im(\mathbf{x}-\mathbf{x}_{0})/2t}}<br />
."

I don't understand the last equation.
Why I can't use the fourier-transformation:

<br /> =\frac{1}{(2\pi)^{3}}\int d^{3}p\, e^{-i\mathbf{p}\cdot(\mathbf{x}_{0}-\mathbf{x})}\widetilde{f}(\mathbf{p})<br />

<br /> =f(\mathbf{p})<br />

<br /> =e^{-i(\mathbf{x}-\mathbf{x}_{0})^{2}/2m)t}<br />
 
Physics news on Phys.org
but is what you have don actually ;)

marco
 
Sry, I don't understand. My solution is a different one as from Peskin & Schroeder. But why?
 
karlsson said:
<br /> =\int\frac{d^{3}p}{(2\pi)^{3}}\left\langle \mathbf{x}\right|e^{-i(\mathbf{p}^{2}/2m)t}\left|\mathbf{p}\right\rangle \left\langle \mathbf{p}\right.\left|\mathbf{x_{0}}\right\rangle

<br /> =\frac{1}{(2\pi)^{3}}\int d^{3}p\, e^{-i(\mathbf{p}^{2}/2m)t}\cdot e^{i\mathbf{p}\cdot(\mathbf{x}-\mathbf{x}_{0})}<br />

<br /> =\left(\frac{m}{2\pi it}\right)^{3/2}\, e^{im(\mathbf{x}-\mathbf{x}_{0})/2t}}<br />
."

I don't understand the last equation.

The last step is made by completing the square and evaluating the gaussian integral (although with complex coefficient). I suspect the expression should be ~exp[im(x-x_0)^2/2t] though...

Why I can't use the fourier-transformation:

The last step is precisely the evaluation of a Fourier transform. In what you write next:

<br /> =\frac{1}{(2\pi)^{3}}\int d^{3}p\, e^{-i\mathbf{p}\cdot(\mathbf{x}_{0}-\mathbf{x})}\widetilde{f}(\mathbf{p})<br />

<br /> =f(\mathbf{p})<br />

<br /> =e^{-i(\mathbf{x}-\mathbf{x}_{0})^{2}/2m)t}<br />

It looks like you have simply taken \widetilde{f}=f and replaced the \mathbf{p} argument with \mathbf{x}-\mathbf{x}_0.. If so then this is wrong. The Fourier transform should be evaluated as in the last step of your first equation (i.e. completing the square as I wrote)
 
jensa said:
I suspect the expression should be ~exp[im(x-x_0)^2/2t] though...

You are right.

jensa said:
The last step is made by completing the square and evaluating the gaussian integral ...

Thanks a lot.
 
I read Hanbury Brown and Twiss's experiment is using one beam but split into two to test their correlation. It said the traditional correlation test were using two beams........ This confused me, sorry. All the correlation tests I learnt such as Stern-Gerlash are using one beam? (Sorry if I am wrong) I was also told traditional interferometers are concerning about amplitude but Hanbury Brown and Twiss were concerning about intensity? Isn't the square of amplitude is the intensity? Please...
I am not sure if this belongs in the biology section, but it appears more of a quantum physics question. Mike Wiest, Associate Professor of Neuroscience at Wellesley College in the US. In 2024 he published the results of an experiment on anaesthesia which purported to point to a role of quantum processes in consciousness; here is a popular exposition: https://neurosciencenews.com/quantum-process-consciousness-27624/ As my expertise in neuroscience doesn't reach up to an ant's ear...
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

Similar threads

Back
Top