Can the wavefunction of a particle determine its position in space?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the nature of the wavefunction in quantum mechanics and its implications for determining the position of a particle in space. Participants explore concepts related to free particles, probability densities, and interpretations of quantum mechanics, including the Copenhagen and Statistical Interpretations.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants note that a wavefunction is associated with a complete system rather than just an individual particle, emphasizing that multiple particles are described by a single wavefunction.
  • Others discuss the implications of the wavefunction's periodic zeroes and how they relate to the probability of finding a particle in certain regions of space.
  • A participant presents the mathematical form of a free particle's wavefunction and its uniform probability density, suggesting that realistic wavefunctions are wave packets that vary in probability density.
  • There is a question about the physical significance of the real and imaginary parts of the wavefunction, with some participants indicating uncertainty about their roles.
  • Some participants express differing views on the interpretations of quantum mechanics, particularly the Copenhagen Interpretation versus the Statistical Interpretation, leading to a discussion about the implications of these interpretations on the nature of the wavefunction.
  • Concerns are raised about the probability of finding a point-like electron in a small volume of space, with participants noting that the probability can vary and that the position operator lacks eigenstates.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express multiple competing views regarding the interpretation of the wavefunction and its implications for particle position. There is no consensus on the nature of the wavefunction or the interpretations of quantum mechanics discussed.

Contextual Notes

Some statements rely on specific interpretations of quantum mechanics, which may not be universally accepted. The discussion includes unresolved mathematical concepts and assumptions about wavefunctions and their properties.

cristian1500
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
Hello

I know that every particle has attached a wavefunction in quantum mechanics.

How does a free particle move in quantum mechanics?

The wavefunction has periodic zeroes, and the |wavefunction|^2 gives the probability of finding that particle...so does this mean that in space the particle has certain places in which it cannot exist?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
A free particle with a definite momentum has a complex wave function:

\Psi(x,t) = Ae^{i(kx - \omega t)}

Its probability density function is

\Psi^*\Psi = A^*e^{-i(kx - \omega t)}Ae^{i(kx - \omega t)} = A^*A

which is uniform and does not have any zeroes.

This is an idealization because there is no such thing as a free particle with a perfectly definite momentum. A realistic free particle wave function is a wave packet whose p.d.f. is maximum at the position where the particle is most likely to be found, and falls off to zero as you go further away from that position. It's rather like taking the functions above and making A a variable instead of a constant, rising from zero to a maximum and then falling back to zero as you move along the x-axis.
 
Last edited:
I see. The wavefunction is complex! The real and imaginary parts have any physical significance?

When do I use the current density in quantum mechanics?
 
cristian1500 said:
I see. The wavefunction is complex! The real and imaginary parts have any physical significance?

No.

cristian1500 said:
When do I use the current density in quantum mechanics?

In problems involving the tunnel effect, for example.
 
cristian1500 said:
Hello

I know that every particle has attached a wavefunction in quantum mechanics.

How does a free particle move in quantum mechanics?

The wavefunction has periodic zeroes, and the |wavefunction|^2 gives the probability of finding that particle...so does this mean that in space the particle has certain places in which it cannot exist?

The probability (for 1-dimensional problems) of finding a particle in the region between x =a and x =b is

\int_{a}^{b} \Psi^* \Psi dx,

so the probability of finding a particle at x = a is

\int_{a}^{a} \Psi^* \Psi dx = 0

even when the wavefunction at x = a is non-zero.

(Delta functions aren't really allowed as states.)
 
Last edited:
cristian1500 said:
Hello

I know that every particle has attached a wavefunction in quantum mechanics.

Careful! A complete system has a wavefunction attached to it! This is frequent error in learning quantum theory, it was a historical error too, and the way things are introduced in most textbooks could give the impression that with a particle, goes a wave.
But it is only in the case that our "complete system" is a single particle, that there is a wavefunction attached to a particle.
In the case we have several particles, there is a SINGLE wavefunction which is describing the SET of particles ; most of the time, this single wavefunction cannot be split into N "single-particle" wavefunctions.
 
cristian1500 said:
Hello

I know that every particle has attached a wavefunction in quantum mechanics.

That's true only if one buys the Copenhagen Interpretation. The Statistical Interpretation denies it.
 
dextercioby said:
That's true only if one buys the Copenhagen Interpretation. The Statistical Interpretation denies it.
But you are one of those who buy it, aren't you?
https://www.physicsforums.com/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=978
 
Last edited by a moderator:
At that time i wasn't even aware of the existence of the statistical interpretation. I was taught Copenhagian in school and didn't bother into MWI and BMech.

I did some more reading inbetween, i guess...

EDIT: And I'm 24 yrs old. So far...
 
Last edited:
  • #10
dextercioby said:
At that time i wasn't even aware of the existence of the statistical interpretation. I was taught Copenhagian in school and didn't bother into MWI and BMech.

I did some more reading inbetween, i guess...
You learn and change your opinion very fast. You must be rather young. Let me guess: 26?
 
  • #11
vanesch said:
In the case we have several particles, there is a SINGLE wavefunction which is describing the SET of particles ; most of the time, this single wavefunction cannot be split into N "single-particle" wavefunctions.

Entanglement accounts for much "spookiness" in quantum theory.

dextercioby said:
That's true only if one buys the Copenhagen Interpretation. The Statistical Interpretation denies it.

I keep meaning to get a copy of Ballentine and look at this; on my "to do someday" list.
 
  • #12
George Jones said:
The probability (for 1-dimensional problems) of finding a particle in the region between x =a and x =b is

\int_{a}^{b} \Psi^* \Psi dx,

so the probability of finding a particle at x = a is

\int_{a}^{a} \Psi^* \Psi dx = 0

even when the wavefunction at x = a is non-zero.

(Delta functions aren't really allowed as states.)
Sorry for the probably silly and/or already treated question: if an electron is point like, should this mean the probability to find it in a very small volume of space is not (almost) zero?
 
  • #13
It all depends on the wavefunction, so it can take any value between 0 and 1, including 0 and 1.
 
  • #14
lightarrow said:
Sorry for the probably silly and/or already treated question: if an electron is point like, should this mean the probability to find it in a very small volume of space is not (almost) zero?

I'm not sure what you're asking. As dextercioby has said, the probability could be any number between 0 and 1.

Note that the position operator has no eigenstates, so it is impossible to prepare an electron in a state that is localized at a single point.

Does https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=722852" help?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #15
dextercioby said:
That's true only if one buys the Copenhagen Interpretation. The Statistical Interpretation denies it.

Define "Statistical Interpretation"

(I am familiar with MWI and I assume BMech is Bohmian Mech.)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
8K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
3K