Clarification about stationary quantum states of a system

deep838
Messages
117
Reaction score
0
Okay, here goes... Our teacher set a question in the last test which asked us to show that if a system initially be in a stationary state, it will remain in a stationary state even if the system evolves according to the time dependent Schrodinger equation. What I did was show that the expectation value of the operator will not change using
∂<O>/∂t = 0
But now that I think about it, I find it really stupid! Why shouldn't the expectation value change with time? It's a quantum system after all... it's supposed to be unpredictable every instant! If I know what it is now, I shouldn't know what the system will become 2 mins later,am I right?
Anyway, I tacitly assumed that ∂ψ/∂t = 0 and ended up with that result...
What the teacher wanted was <O(t)> = <O(t0)>
Please help me get out of my own mess! Let me know if I need to clarify anything.

Thanks in advance.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The fact that the expectation value of observables in stationary states is constant, doesn't mean the actual value of that observable is constant and you can predict it. It just means the probability distribution for that observable isn't changing. But measurements separated by finite amounts of time, still give different values for the same observable.
Also, ## \frac{\partial \psi}{\partial t}=0 ## is in general not correct for a stationary state. An stationary state is of the form ## \Psi(\vec r,t)=\psi(\vec r) e^{-i \omega t}##. So we have:
## \langle O \rangle_{\Psi}=\langle \Psi |O|\Psi \rangle= \langle \psi |e^{i \omega t}Oe^{-i \omega t}|\psi \rangle=\langle \psi |e^{i \omega t}e^{-i \omega t}O|\psi \rangle=\langle \psi |O|\psi \rangle= \langle O \rangle_{\psi}## which means ## \langle O \rangle_{\Psi}## is independent of time.
 
  • Like
Likes deep838
Shyan said:
The fact that the expectation value of observables in stationary states is constant, doesn't mean the actual value of that observable is constant and you can predict it. It just means the probability distribution for that observable isn't changing. But measurements separated by finite amounts of time, still give different values for the same observable.
Also, ## \frac{\partial \psi}{\partial t}=0 ## is in general not correct for a stationary state. An stationary state is of the form ## \Psi(\vec r,t)=\psi(\vec r) e^{-i \omega t}##. So we have:
## \langle O \rangle_{\Psi}=\langle \Psi |O|\Psi \rangle= \langle \psi |e^{i \omega t}Oe^{-i \omega t}|\psi \rangle=\langle \psi |e^{i \omega t}e^{-i \omega t}O|\psi \rangle=\langle \psi |O|\psi \rangle= \langle O \rangle_{\psi}## which means ## \langle O \rangle_{\Psi}## is independent of time.

I see... thank you for replying so early... Yes I kind of knew that ## \frac{\partial \psi}{\partial t}=0 ## is wrong... but in that short period of time I didn't even try to think... please don't start criticizing me for that...
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In her YouTube video Bell’s Theorem Experiments on Entangled Photons, Dr. Fugate shows how polarization-entangled photons violate Bell’s inequality. In this Insight, I will use quantum information theory to explain why such entangled photon-polarization qubits violate the version of Bell’s inequality due to John Clauser, Michael Horne, Abner Shimony, and Richard Holt known as the...
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...
I asked a question related to a table levitating but I am going to try to be specific about my question after one of the forum mentors stated I should make my question more specific (although I'm still not sure why one couldn't have asked if a table levitating is possible according to physics). Specifically, I am interested in knowing how much justification we have for an extreme low probability thermal fluctuation that results in a "miraculous" event compared to, say, a dice roll. Does a...
Back
Top