I Clarifying the Superposition Principle

  • I
  • Thread starter Thread starter MatinSAR
  • Start date Start date
MatinSAR
Messages
673
Reaction score
204
TL;DR Summary
Clarifying the Superposition Principle: Writing |ψ⟩ as a Linear Combination of Possible States.
Hi everyone,
I’m currently learning quantum mechanics and trying to wrap my head around superposition, measurement, and how repeated observations work. Here’s how I understand it—please let me know if I’m on the right track or if there’s anything I might be missing!


1743616464758.png


I’m trying to understand how different wave functions (ψ) like ##ψ_1## and ##ψ_2## in above picture, relate to probabilities in a quantum system.

Do different ψ's (like ψ₁, ψ₂, in above picture) represent entirely distinct probability distributions? For example, does ψ₁ predict a high probability of finding the particle at position x=2, while ψ₂ predicts it at x=3?
Or ...
Is there a single probability distribution described by one ψ, where ψ(x₁), ψ(x₂), etc., give the probabilities for different positions (x₁, x₂, ...) within that same distribution?
In other words, is each ψ its own 'probability rule' for the system?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The wave function itself is a distribution of probability amplitudes. The modulus squared gives a probability distribution.

That's why a superposition of wavefunction involves interference between the wavefunctions.
 
  • Like
Likes bhobba and MatinSAR
PeroK said:
The wave function itself is a distribution of probability amplitudes. The modulus squared gives a probability distribution.

That's why a superposition of wavefunction involves interference between the wavefunctions.
I still don't fully understand what ##\psi_1 (\vec r,t)## and ##\psi_2(\vec r,t)## represent. Do they describe different distributions across the entire domain, or does their square represent the probability of finding the particle at a specific position ##\vec r##?
 
MatinSAR said:
I still don't fully understand what ##\psi_1 (\vec r,t)## and ##\psi_2(\vec r,t)## represent. Do they describe different distributions across the entire domain, or does their square represent the probability of finding the particle at a specific position ##\vec r##?
Each is a valid wavefunction. And a normalised linear combination of the two is a valid wavefunction.

Are you familiar with the superposition of electric fields? It's the same idea.

There's nothing mathematically radical about quantum superposition.
 
  • Like
Likes bhobba and MatinSAR
PeroK said:
Each is a valid wavefunction. And a normalised linear combination of the two is a valid wavefunction.

Are you familiar with the superposition of electric fields? It's the same idea.

There's nothing mathematically radical about quantum superposition.
So my first understanding in post #1 was correct.
MatinSAR said:
Do different ψ's (like ψ₁, ψ₂, in above picture) represent entirely distinct probability distributions? For example, does ψ₁ predict a high probability of finding the particle at position x=2, while ψ₂ predicts it at x=3?
In this context how the coefficients determined? By repeating same experiment many times?
PeroK said:
Are you familiar with the superposition of electric fields? It's the same idea.
Not sure But I will check my books.
 
MatinSAR said:
In this context how the coefficients determined? By repeating same experiment many times?
Yes. In terms of experimentally confirming a given procedure produces a given superposition of wavefunctions.
 
  • Like
Likes bhobba and MatinSAR
PeroK said:
Yes. In terms of experimentally confirming a given procedure produces a given superposition of wavefunctions.
Thank you for your help @PeroK
Comparing the textbook content with these ideas requires more time.
 
MatinSAR said:
Thank you for your help @PeroK
Comparing the textbook content with these ideas requires more time.

Indeed.

In QM, one builds up understanding over time by reading more advanced material. Eventually, you should read Ballentine—QM: A Modern Development. Don't worry at first; the nuanced understanding will come with time.

Thanks
Bill
 
bhobba said:
Indeed.

In QM, one builds up understanding over time by reading more advanced material. Eventually, you should read Ballentine—QM: A Modern Development. Don't worry at first; the nuanced understanding will come with time.

Thanks
Bill
Appreciate the tip! I’ll definitely check out Ballentine once I’ve leveled up a bit more.

Thanks for the reassurance!
 

Similar threads

Replies
8
Views
1K
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
81
Views
7K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Back
Top