Can the wave function be a constant?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion explores whether the wave function can be a constant in specific cases within quantum mechanics, particularly focusing on scenarios involving periodic boundary conditions and different spatial configurations. Participants examine implications for various systems, including particles on a ring and in atoms.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that a constant wave function is possible for a particle constrained to move in a circular path, such as on a ring, particularly for the k=0 momentum eigenstate.
  • Others argue that while the wave function can appear constant in certain configurations, such as the s-orbital in an atom, it is not truly constant due to decay with radius.
  • A participant mentions that boundary conditions play a crucial role in determining whether a wave function can be constant, contrasting it with cases like the infinite square well where such conditions disallow a constant solution.
  • Another viewpoint suggests that a constant wave function in position space corresponds to a delta function in momentum space, raising questions about its validity as a solution to the Schrödinger equation.
  • Some participants clarify that the existence of constant wave functions is contingent on the space being compact and periodic, allowing for valid solutions under specific Hamiltonians.
  • There is a discussion about the relationship between constant wave functions and stationary states, with some asserting that stationary states can exist even if constant wave functions do not.
  • One participant highlights that while the k=0 mode has no spatial dependence, other momentum modes for a free particle on a ring have constant probability densities but not constant wave functions.
  • Another participant notes that constant functions can be solutions to Laplace's equation in various compact spaces, such as spheres and tori, and discusses the implications for energy eigenstates in these contexts.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the conditions under which a wave function can be constant, with no consensus reached on the validity of constant wave functions in various scenarios. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the implications of these conditions on the nature of wave functions in quantum mechanics.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the dependence on specific boundary conditions and the nature of the Hamiltonian involved. The discussion does not resolve the mathematical implications of constant wave functions in different contexts.

dreamspy
Messages
41
Reaction score
3
I'm wondering if the wave function can be a constant in some special cases?

Now I understand that if we have a one dimensional wave function describing the location of a particle (say, along the x-axis), then the wave function can not be a constant. If it was, then it wouldn't be normalizable.

But what if the particle is free to move in a circle? The we have [tex]\psi(\theta) = \psi(\theta + 2 * \pi)[/tex]
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Yes exactly. The particle on a ring has a constant wavefunction for the k=0 momentum eigenstate. The s-orbital in an atom is a bit like a constant wave function too, except it decays with radius. Similarly, the wavefunction for the particle on a ring isn't constant if you take into account the space outside the ring.
 
And it's the bondary conditions that allow n to be 0? I suppose so since it were the boundary conditions that dissaloved n to be 0 in the case of the infinite square well. Thanks for your answer :)

Regards
Frímann
 
If the wave function is constant in position space, then it's a delta function in momentum space. I don't see how that could be a valid solution to the S.E.
 
alxm, you have a slight confusion I believe.

'Can the wavefunction be constant?' is not the same as whether it solves the time-independent SE.

A valid wavefunction in the position representation is one which is continuous.
If we are going to have valid wave function which is constant, it has to exist in a space with boundary conditions which allow it to be constant: so it has to exist in a periodic (compact) space.

For a general Hamiltonian on such a space, such a wave function will evolve in time according to the TDSE and no longer be constant in space.

For the special case of a free particle hamiltonian on a periodic space, H = p^2/2m, the constant wavefunction will also be an eigenstate with 0 energy, so it will also solve the TISE.
 
Last edited:
dreamspy said:
I'm wondering if the wave function can be a constant in some special cases?

If there were no constant wavefunctions, can there be stationary states?
 
mccoy1 said:
If there were no constant wavefunctions, can there be stationary states?
Yes.
 
I think the original question was concerned with 'constant in space' wave functions. In fact any momentum mode for a free particle on a ring has a probability density which is constant in space, but only the k=0 mode has no spatial dependence for the wavefunction.

Constancy in time only makes sense for the probability density, since an arbitrary shift of the definition of energy can alter the time dependence of all states.

Eigenstates of the hamiltonian are 'stationary' in the sense that the expectation value of any observable is time independent. It is certainly not the case that eigenstates of the hamiltonian have no time dependence.
 
Hootenanny said:
Yes.

mmmm ..I think you're right, but are you suggesting that the wavefunction that describes hyrdogen electron in its ground state keep changing?
Also i realized that my comment is irrelevant to the original post.
 
  • #10
peteratcam said:
alxm, you have a slight confusion I believe.

'Can the wavefunction be constant?' is not the same as whether it solves the time-independent SE.

Well I didn't really say that, although I'm still not sure what you were getting at with the s-orbital analogy. (which certainly is a solution to the TISE, and does not have an definite momentum) So I got a bit confused on whether you were talking about a spherically symmetric system, or what.

I see what you're talking about now. Yes, if you've got a 1-dimensional 'particle in a box' where you give it periodic boundary conditions, then the plane wave solutions [tex]\psi_n = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}}e^{inx}[/tex] are normalizable and valid, and the constant wave function [tex]\psi_0 = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}}[/tex] is a solution, with definite energy and momentum. (zero and zero in that case)
 
  • #11
What I'm getting at with the s-orbital analogy is that there are a number of spaces on which the 'constant function' is a solution to laplace's equation: one such space is the sphere; another is a torus; another is a line with periodic boundary conditions. All these spaces are compact, which allows the constant function to be normalised to unity.

The free particle on a sphere problem (rigid rotator) has energy eigenstates which are also eigenstates of angular momentum. The l=0 spherical harmonic is a constant function.

The free particle on a torus has energy eigenstates which are also eigenstates of momentum. The kx=ky=0 state is a constant function.

The other point I was getting at is that the constant function is a valid state for single particle QM on such spaces, even if it is not an eigenstate of the Hamiltonian. In this case, if you prepare the system such that the particle wave function is constant, in a few ns, the wavefunction will have evolved according to the TISE and will no longer be constant.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K