Can Free Particle Have Sharp Energy?

Click For Summary
A free particle traveling without potential energy can indeed have a sharp energy value, contrary to the initial claim. This is because a free particle described by a plane wave solution to the Schrödinger equation has a well-defined momentum, and since momentum and energy operators commute, the energy is also well-defined. The discussion highlights the importance of citing sources accurately to avoid misinformation. The original poster acknowledges the need to find the source of their information. Overall, the clarification emphasizes that a free particle can possess a sharp energy value.
LarryS
Gold Member
Messages
359
Reaction score
33
I read somewhere that a single particle traveling freely (not in a box, no PE function, etc.) cannot have a sharp energy. Is this correct? If so, why?

As always, thanks in advance.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Where did you read that and what was the reasoning ?
 
referframe said:
I read somewhere that a single particle traveling freely (not in a box, no PE function, etc.) cannot have a sharp energy. Is this correct? If so, why?

As always, thanks in advance.

We request that members who post something like this make exact reference to the source. This will force people, at least from now on, the pay attention to the source that they wish for us to address in the future.

This is a perfect example, because what you describe is actually false. A free particle that is described by a plane wave solution to the Schrodinger equation, will have a well-defined momentum. Since for a free particle, the momentum and energy operators commute with each other, it means that the energy of that particle is also well-defined. Thus, this is equivalent to having a sharp energy value at a particular value - a delta function.

So now we are left with the question on whether (i) you read your source correctly, (ii) you read a dubious, faulty piece of information, or (iii) a number of other possible explanations. Without knowing the source of the information, we have no way of knowing.

Zz.
 
ZapperZ said:
We request that members who post something like this make exact reference to the source. This will force people, at least from now on, the pay attention to the source that they wish for us to address in the future.

This is a perfect example, because what you describe is actually false. A free particle that is described by a plane wave solution to the Schrodinger equation, will have a well-defined momentum. Since for a free particle, the momentum and energy operators commute with each other, it means that the energy of that particle is also well-defined. Thus, this is equivalent to having a sharp energy value at a particular value - a delta function.

So now we are left with the question on whether (i) you read your source correctly, (ii) you read a dubious, faulty piece of information, or (iii) a number of other possible explanations. Without knowing the source of the information, we have no way of knowing.

Zz.


I read it a couple of weeks ago. I will try to find the source. I think it was just somebody's paper that I ran into using Google. In any case, thanks for the clarification.
 
Time reversal invariant Hamiltonians must satisfy ##[H,\Theta]=0## where ##\Theta## is time reversal operator. However, in some texts (for example see Many-body Quantum Theory in Condensed Matter Physics an introduction, HENRIK BRUUS and KARSTEN FLENSBERG, Corrected version: 14 January 2016, section 7.1.4) the time reversal invariant condition is introduced as ##H=H^*##. How these two conditions are identical?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 75 ·
3
Replies
75
Views
5K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
5K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
3K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
8K