Complex representation of wave function

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on the representation of wave functions in optics using complex numbers, specifically the equation u(𝑟,t)=Re{U(𝑟,t)}=1/2(U+U*), where U denotes the complex wave function. It is established that this approach is valid for linear evolution equations, while nonlinear cases require careful, case-by-case analysis. The use of complex analysis is emphasized as beneficial for managing cyclical behaviors, such as the trade-off between potential and kinetic energy in systems like pendulums.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of wave functions in quantum mechanics
  • Familiarity with complex numbers and their properties
  • Knowledge of linear and nonlinear differential equations
  • Basic principles of optics and wave behavior
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the implications of linear vs. nonlinear evolution equations in quantum mechanics
  • Study complex analysis techniques relevant to wave functions
  • Explore the relationship between complex representations and physical interpretations in optics
  • Investigate the role of complex numbers in modeling cyclical systems in physics
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, optical engineers, and students of quantum mechanics seeking to deepen their understanding of wave function representations and their applications in analyzing dynamic systems.

Runei
Messages
193
Reaction score
17
When solving problems, particularly in optics, it is often that we represent the wave-function as a complex number, and then take the real part of it to be the final solution, after we do our analysis.
u(\vec{r},t)=Re\{U(\vec{r},t)\}=\frac{1}{2}\left(U+U^*\right)
Here U is the complex form of the wave function.

What my question is, is whether there exists some analyses regarding the validity of this approach. In general, can we prove that any of the operations we perform in the "complex domain" do not add "extras" to the real function, after we convert back.

Thanks in advance!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Runei said:
What my question is, is whether there exists some analyses regarding the validity of this approach. In general, can we prove that any of the operations we perform in the "complex domain" do not add "extras" to the real function, after we convert back.
Just a short answer for now: I think that, as long as the evolution equation in question is linear, this approach is valid and not difficult to verify. When the quantity evolves in a nonlinear way, more care and case-by-case assessment are needed.
 
Runei said:
When solving problems, particularly in optics, it is often that we represent the wave-function as a complex number, and then take the real part of it to be the final solution, after we do our analysis.
u(\vec{r},t)=Re\{U(\vec{r},t)\}=\frac{1}{2}\left(U+U^*\right)
Here U is the complex form of the wave function.

What my question is, is whether there exists some analyses regarding the validity of this approach. In general, can we prove that any of the operations we perform in the "complex domain" do not add "extras" to the real function, after we convert back.
Just the opposite. If the operations add "extras" to the real function, then they belong there and would have been more difficult to keep track of without the complex analysis approach. The complex plane is a very good way of dealing with cyclic behavior. Suppose a problem has cyclical trade-offs between two things. For instance, the trade-off between the potential and kinetic energy of a pendulum. The real and complex parts are a good way of representing the two types of energy and keeping them coordinated in one entity. The operations in complex analysis are designed to allow the study of such dynamic interactions.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K