De-dimensionalizing/rescaling units

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter MaestroBach
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Units
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of rescaling units in physics, particularly in the context of quantum mechanics and the Schrödinger equation. Participants explore how to manipulate units when setting physical constants, such as hbar, to 1 for simplification. The conversation includes requests for resources, examples, and clarifications on the implications of these transformations on other units.

Discussion Character

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

Main Points Raised

  • One participant seeks resources and concrete examples for rescaling units, expressing confusion over the concept of de-dimensionalizing.
  • Another participant suggests that the process is known as natural units and provides links for further reading.
  • A participant explains how to redefine variables in the Schrödinger equation by setting hbar to 1, detailing the transformations of variables and their implications for the equation's form.
  • Clarifications are made regarding the definition of wave functions and the scalar product when using rescaled variables.
  • Questions arise about the origin of the factor hbar^{3/2} in the redefinition of wave functions and how displacement units change when using rescaled variables.
  • Concerns are raised about the compatibility of setting both hbar and c to 1, as they may lead to different unit systems.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the process of rescaling units and the implications of setting hbar to 1, but there are ongoing questions and uncertainties regarding the specifics of unit transformations and the effects of setting multiple constants to 1. The discussion remains unresolved on the best practices for these transformations.

Contextual Notes

Participants express uncertainty about the implications of their transformations on units and the uniqueness of the substitutions made. There is also a lack of consensus on the best approach when combining multiple constants like hbar and c.

MaestroBach
Messages
53
Reaction score
4
TL;DR
I need to set certain values to 1, then rescale the rest of my units around that, but am unsure of how to do this in general.
Sorry if this is the wrong place to put this- I had no idea what category my question should fall under.

Does anyone possibly have good resources or good explanations on how to re-scale units? Something with concrete examples instead of just abstract explanations? For example, something like if I set hbar = 1, how would I manipulate my other units such as energy/what units would they end up as? I don't know if de-dimensionalizing is the correct name for what I want to do- my professor calls it rescaling units.

Google wasn't very helpful, and I got confused by wikipedia's page on nondimensionalization.

I would appreciate any help!
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
jedishrfu said:
It would help a lot if you provided some context here.

okay so you’re wanting to set certain physical constants to 1 or 0 in order to simplify an equation.

I think this is called natural units:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_units

and this discussion on Physics Stack Exchange

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/168983/setting-constants-equal-to-1-conditions
For context, something I'm doing is just solving Schrödinger's equations for particles in boxes, but it's suggested that I set hbar = 1, in order to make numbers easier to handle/look at when plotting. However, I just don't get how setting hbar = 1 affects my other units/variables- I don't understand how the units of energy or displacement are affected by setting hbar = 1, if that makes sense.
 
Well, it's easy, start with the Schrödinger equation written like
$$i\hbar \frac{\partial}{\partial t} \Psi = \left[-\frac{\hbar^2}{2m}\nabla^2+V\right]\Psi$$
What you can do first, to simplify this equation is to define new variables, call them ##\hat{\vec{x}}=\frac{\vec{x}}{\hbar}## and ##\hat{t}=\frac{t}{\hbar}##, notice that trivially, because ##\hbar## is constant
$$\hbar\frac{\partial}{\partial t}=\hbar \frac{\partial}{\partial(\hbar\hat{t})}=\frac{\partial}{\partial \hat{t}}, \qquad \hbar^2\nabla_{x}^2= \nabla_{\hat{x}}^2$$
Where obviously ##\nabla_{x}^2=\frac{\partial^2}{\partial x^2}+\frac{\partial^2}{\partial y^2}+\frac{\partial^2}{\partial z^2}## and ##\nabla_{\hat{x}}^2=\frac{\partial^2}{\partial \hat{x}^2}+\frac{\partial^2}{\partial \hat{y}^2}+\frac{\partial^2}{\partial \hat{z}^2}##
Then Schrödinger equation reads
$$i \frac{\partial}{\partial \hat{t}} \Psi = \left[-\frac{1}{2m}\nabla_{\hat{x}}^2+V\right]\Psi$$
Also, you define the wave functions with a scalar product given by
$$\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \Psi^*\Phi d^3x$$
We can also redefine the wave functions with ##\hat{\Psi}=\frac{\Psi}{\hbar^{3/2}}##, then the scalar product becomes
$$\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \hat{\Psi}^*\hat{\Phi} d^3\hat{x}$$

Note that the Schrödinger equation also has the same form
$$i \frac{\partial}{\partial \hat{t}} \hat{\Psi} = \left[-\frac{1}{2m}\nabla_{\hat{x}}^2+V\right]\hat{\Psi}$$
What physicist usually mean with 'take ##\hbar=1##' is to do this substitutions and then we simply drop all the ##\hat{ }## from the equations.

By the way, note that these substitutions are not unique, I've started with ##\hat{x}=\frac{x}{\hbar}##, but anything fulfilling ##\hbar\frac{\hat{x}^2}{\hat{t}}=\frac{x^2}{t}## will do the job as well. The motivation doing in my way (aside that may seem more natural) is that ##\hat{x}## and ##\hat{t}## have units like ##\text{kg}^\alpha (\text{ms}^{-1})^\beta##.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: MaestroBach
Gaussian97 said:
Well, it's easy, start with the Schrödinger equation written like
$$i\hbar \frac{\partial}{\partial t} \Psi = \left[-\frac{\hbar^2}{2m}\nabla^2+V\right]\Psi$$
What you can do first, to simplify this equation is to define new variables, call them ##\hat{\vec{x}}=\frac{\vec{x}}{\hbar}## and ##\hat{t}=\frac{t}{\hbar}##, notice that trivially, because ##\hbar## is constant
$$\hbar\frac{\partial}{\partial t}=\hbar \frac{\partial}{\partial(\hbar\hat{t})}=\frac{\partial}{\partial \hat{t}}, \qquad \hbar^2\nabla_{x}^2= \nabla_{\hat{x}}^2$$
Where obviously ##\nabla_{x}^2=\frac{\partial^2}{\partial x^2}+\frac{\partial^2}{\partial y^2}+\frac{\partial^2}{\partial z^2}## and ##\nabla_{\hat{x}}^2=\frac{\partial^2}{\partial \hat{x}^2}+\frac{\partial^2}{\partial \hat{y}^2}+\frac{\partial^2}{\partial \hat{z}^2}##
Then Schrödinger equation reads
$$i \frac{\partial}{\partial \hat{t}} \Psi = \left[-\frac{1}{2m}\nabla_{\hat{x}}^2+V\right]\Psi$$
Also, you define the wave functions with a scalar product given by
$$\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \Psi^*\Phi d^3x$$
We can also redefine the wave functions with ##\hat{\Psi}=\frac{\Psi}{\hbar^{3/2}}##, then the scalar product becomes
$$\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \hat{\Psi}^*\hat{\Phi} d^3\hat{x}$$

Note that the Schrödinger equation also has the same form
$$i \frac{\partial}{\partial \hat{t}} \hat{\Psi} = \left[-\frac{1}{2m}\nabla_{\hat{x}}^2+V\right]\hat{\Psi}$$
What physicist usually mean with 'take ##\hbar=1##' is to do this substitutions and then we simply drop all the ##\hat{ }## from the equations.

By the way, note that these substitutions are not unique, I've started with ##\hat{x}=\frac{x}{\hbar}##, but anything fulfilling ##\hbar\frac{\hat{x}^2}{\hat{t}}=\frac{x^2}{t}## will do the job as well. The motivation doing in my way (aside that may seem more natural) is that ##\hat{x}## and ##\hat{t}## have units like ##\text{kg}^\alpha (\text{ms}^{-1})^\beta##.

This made a ton of sense! Thank you so much!

Couple questions:

When you were redefining ##\hat{\Psi}##, where did the ##\hbar^{3/2}## come from?

Also, given that I'm now using ##\hat{\vec{x}}##, does that mean that the units of my displacement are whatever my displacement units originally were (such as meters) divided by ##\hbar ##? I guess I'm confused as to how you get the ##\text{kg}^\alpha (\text{ms}^{-1})^\beta## units

I've seen people take ##c = 1## in tandem with ##\hbar = 1##, but does that mess anything up, given that setting ##\hbar = 1## specified the units of displacement and time, but ##c = 1## would set up a different set of units?
 
MaestroBach said:
When you were redefining ##\hat{\Psi}##, where did the ##\hbar^{3/2}## come from?

Well, simply because you want your new equation to look exactly the same as the old ones (because in this way you can throw away the ##\hat{}## without any change), since you have originally
$$\int_{-\infty}^\infty \Psi^*\Phi d^3x$$
With the new variable ##x=\hbar\hat{x}## you have
$$\int_{-\infty}^\infty \hbar^3\Psi^*\Phi d^3\hat{x} = \int_{-\infty}^\infty \hat{\Psi}^*\hat{\Phi} d^3\hat{x}\Longrightarrow \hat{\Psi}^*\hat{\Phi}=\hbar^3 \Psi^*\Phi $$
Because you want this to be true for all the functions ##\Psi## and ##\Phi## you must choose the change
$$\hat{\Psi}=\hbar^{3/2}\Psi$$.

MaestroBach said:
Also, given that I'm now using ##\hat{\vec{x}}##, does that mean that the units of my displacement are whatever my displacement units originally were (such as meters) divided by ##\hbar ##? I guess I'm confused as to how you get the ##\text{kg}^\alpha (\text{ms}^{-1})^\beta## units

Yes, the units of ##x## are ##\text{m}## and the units of ##\hbar## are ##\text{kgm}^2\text{s}^{-1}## in SI, so therefore the units of ##\hat{x}## are
$$[\hat{x}]=\frac{[x]}{[\hbar]}=\frac{\text{m}}{\text{kgm}^2\text{s}^{-1}}=\text{kg}^{-1}(\text{ms}^{-1})^{-1}$$
And a similar thing for ##\hat{t}##.

MaestroBach said:
I've seen people take ##c = 1## in tandem with ##\hbar = 1##, but does that mess anything up, given that setting ##\hbar = 1## specified the units of displacement and time, but ##c = 1## would set up a different set of units?
As I said the change is not unique, because ##\hbar## and ##c## are linearly independent magnitudes you can always choose such a transformation so that all the ##\hbar## and ##c## of your equations disappear (as we physicists say, we can put ##\hbar=c=1##). Actually that's the reason why I did the change I did, because now adding the condition ##c=1## is trivial (note that all the ##\hat{ }## variables are proportional to units of velocity).
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: MaestroBach
Gaussian97 said:
Well, simply because you want your new equation to look exactly the same as the old ones (because in this way you can throw away the ##\hat{}## without any change), since you have originally
$$\int_{-\infty}^\infty \Psi^*\Phi d^3x$$
With the new variable ##x=\hbar\hat{x}## you have
$$\int_{-\infty}^\infty \hbar^3\Psi^*\Phi d^3\hat{x} = \int_{-\infty}^\infty \hat{\Psi}^*\hat{\Phi} d^3\hat{x}\Longrightarrow \hat{\Psi}^*\hat{\Phi}=\hbar^3 \Psi^*\Phi $$
Because you want this to be true for all the functions ##\Psi## and ##\Phi## you must choose the change
$$\hat{\Psi}=\hbar^{3/2}\Psi$$.
Yes, the units of ##x## are ##\text{m}## and the units of ##\hbar## are ##\text{kgm}^2\text{s}^{-1}## in SI, so therefore the units of ##\hat{x}## are
$$[\hat{x}]=\frac{[x]}{[\hbar]}=\frac{\text{m}}{\text{kgm}^2\text{s}^{-1}}=\text{kg}^{-1}(\text{ms}^{-1})^{-1}$$
And a similar thing for ##\hat{t}##.As I said the change is not unique, because ##\hbar## and ##c## are linearly independent magnitudes you can always choose such a transformation so that all the ##\hbar## and ##c## of your equations disappear (as we physicists say, we can put ##\hbar=c=1##). Actually that's the reason why I did the change I did, because now adding the condition ##c=1## is trivial (note that all the ##\hat{ }## variables are proportional to units of velocity).
Really, really appreciate your help, thank you!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • · Replies 37 ·
2
Replies
37
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
6K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
6K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
16K