Complex Conjugate of Fourier Transform

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the representation of the complex conjugate of a wavefunction in terms of momentum basis states, particularly focusing on how the Fourier transform of the wavefunction and its complex conjugate relate to the probability density. Participants explore the mathematical implications of these transformations and their properties.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant, Andrew, questions whether the complex conjugate of the wavefunction can be expressed in a similar Fourier transform form as the wavefunction itself, and how this affects the resulting probability density.
  • Another participant provides a mathematical expression for the complex conjugate of the wavefunction, indicating that it involves changing the sign of the imaginary parts in the Fourier transform.
  • A later reply acknowledges confusion regarding the multiplication of the wavefunction and its complex conjugate, suggesting that the result should yield a real number for the probability density.
  • Another participant elaborates on the product of the wavefunction and its conjugate, presenting an integral expression and discussing the symmetry involved in the Fourier transform that contributes to the real-valued nature of the probability density.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express varying levels of understanding regarding the mathematical properties of the Fourier transform and its implications for the wavefunction and its complex conjugate. There is no consensus on a definitive resolution to the initial question posed by Andrew.

Contextual Notes

Some participants exhibit uncertainty about the distributive properties in the context of Fourier transforms and the conditions under which the resulting expressions yield real numbers. The discussion does not resolve these mathematical nuances.

Epoch12000BC
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Hello All,

As I understand it, the wavefunction Psi(x) can be written as a sum of all the particle's momentum basis states (which is the Fourier transform of Psi(x)). I was woundering if the wavefunction's complex conjugate Psi*(x) can be written out in terms of momentum basis states, similar to the transform of Psi(x), and if so, what form would it take in order to make make the probability density of Psi(x)Psi*(x) the correct real-valued number.

In other words, if both Psi(x) and Psi*(x) were written out in their Fourier transform forms, and multiplied together in these forms, what would the transform of Psi*(x) look like?

Any insight into this would be greatly appriciated.

-Andrew
 
Physics news on Phys.org
No magic here. If
\psi(x)= \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}} \int\!dk\, \psi(k) e^{\frac{i k x}{\hbar},
then
\psi^*(x)= \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}} \int\!dk\, \psi^*(k) e^{\frac{-i k x}{\hbar},
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the help, lbrits!

I figured the complex conjugate would involve making negative all the imaginary parts of the transform, but it seemed like doing the ol' FOIL method when multiplying Psi(x) and Psi*(x) would result in a number that would generally be complex, not the real number that the probability density should be. I guess I'm a bit rusty on my math :-)

Thanks again for the help,
-droo
 
Yeah I was a bit rusty on the whole distributivity property of products over sums. Anyway, things are quite forgiving:
\psi^*(x) \psi(x) = \frac{1}{2\pi \hbar} \int\!dk\,dq\, \psi^*(k) \psi(q) e^{i (k-q)x/hbar}
I believe you can show this to be the Fourier transform of f(k) = \int\!dq\, \psi^*(k) \psi(k-q), and to show that the thing is real, is to remember that in the Fourier transform things always come in pairs, one multiplied by e^{ikx} and one by e^{-ikx}. The previous expression exhibits a symmetry under k -> -k.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 70 ·
3
Replies
70
Views
6K