Defining velocity distribution

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter bob900
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Distribution Velocity
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the definition of velocity distribution in the context of quantum mechanics, particularly focusing on how velocity can be understood in relation to a particle's wave function and measurements. Participants explore the implications of measurement on defining position and velocity, as well as the statistical nature of these concepts.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests that a particle does not have a well-defined velocity if it lacks a well-defined position before measurement, proposing a velocity distribution based on the wave function.
  • Another participant challenges this view, arguing that a particle can have a well-defined velocity even if its position is not well-defined, particularly in the case of a free particle.
  • A later reply references Griffiths' text to support the idea that without a determinate position, one cannot claim a well-defined velocity, emphasizing the statistical nature of velocity as a probability distribution.
  • Some participants discuss the implications of measurement on defining velocity, noting that after measurement, one can calculate average velocity as the ratio of position to time.
  • There is a suggestion that defining velocity requires consideration of the wave function and its representation in momentum space, with a proposed method for calculating expectation values for momentum and velocity.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the relationship between position and velocity, with no consensus reached on whether a particle can have a well-defined velocity without a well-defined position. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the implications of measurement and the definitions of velocity.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the statistical representation of velocity distributions and the complexities introduced by quantum mechanics, including the measurement problem and the role of wave functions. There are unresolved assumptions regarding the definitions and implications of velocity in quantum contexts.

bob900
Messages
40
Reaction score
0
Since a particle does not have a well defined position (before measurement), it also does not have a well defined velocity. But it seems like we can define a velocity distribution.

Suppose we observe a particle at position x=0 at time t=0. If at a later time t we observe it at x, the observed velocity is v=x/t. The probability of observing it at x at time t (and hence observing velocity v), is P(v,t) = |ψ(x,t)|[itex]^{2}[/itex].

The expected value of v, will then be <v> = ∫v |ψ(x,t)|[itex]^{2}[/itex]dx = ∫(x/t) |ψ(x,t)|[itex]^{2}[/itex]dx. Since momentum p = mv, <p> = m<v> = m ∫(x/t) |ψ(x,t)|[itex]^{2}[/itex]dx.

Is this correct? Is this consistent with the known result that <p> = m d<x>/dt ?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
First of all, in your first sentence, I'm not sure if that's true. A particle can have no well defined position, but a well defined velocity.

Also, if you're talking about a free particle, that's not how it works, I believe... You have a particle at x = 0 at t = 0. There, its position is well defined and its probability distribution is a sharply peaked gaussian. Then, as time goes on, the gaussian widens, because you can find the particle at more places. But if you measure it, it can have done many things in between t = 0 and when you measured it. It may have gone to China and back, I dunno. So then the simple v = x/t doesn't quite hold.
 
VortexLattice said:
First of all, in your first sentence, I'm not sure if that's true. A particle can have no well defined position, but a well defined velocity.

I was just quoting Griffiths, Introduction to QM 1ed, page 15, talking about a free particle :

"If the particle doesn't have a determinate position (prior to measurement), neither does it have well-defined velocity. All we could reasonably ask for is the probability of getting a particular value".

Also, if you're talking about a free particle, that's not how it works, I believe... You have a particle at x = 0 at t = 0. There, its position is well defined and its probability distribution is a sharply peaked gaussian. Then, as time goes on, the gaussian widens, because you can find the particle at more places. But if you measure it, it can have done many things in between t = 0 and when you measured it. It may have gone to China and back, I dunno. So then the simple v = x/t doesn't quite hold.

Prior to measurement it doesn't have a well defined position and so I don't see how you can meaningfully talk about it 'being' or having 'gone' anywhere at all, China or elsewhere. Post observation, however, you have a determinate position X and determinate time interval T that elapsed, and unless you redefine what "velocity" means, the (average) velocity = X/T.
 
A distribution is a statistical representation. It either represents the probability of a certain particle having a certain velocity, or the statistical breakdown of a bunch of particles. In either case, the measurement problem doesn't come into play.
 
Khashishi said:
A distribution is a statistical representation. It either represents the probability of a certain particle having a certain velocity

But how does one define a particle's 'velocity', when all one has is a wave function whose squared amplitude represents a probability of observing the particle at a certain position.
 
bob900 said:
<v> = ∫v |ψ(x,t)|[itex]^{2}[/itex]dx

That's not correct; you have to use dx/dt instead of x/t; and dx/dt has to be replaced with p/m.

bob900 said:
But how does one define a particle's 'velocity', when all one has is a wave function whose squared amplitude represents a probability of observing the particle at a certain position.
Velocity can be defined using the momentum-space wave function derived via Fourier transformation or via position-space wave function; these two approaches are strictle equivalent. Let's use momentum space, i.e.

[tex]\psi(p) = \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}dx\,e^{-ipx}\,\psi(x)[/tex]

Then let's define the expectation values for momentum

[tex]\langle p \rangle = \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}\frac{dp}{2\pi}\,p\,|\psi(p)|^2[/tex]

and velocity

[tex]\langle v \rangle = \frac{1}{m}\langle p \rangle[/tex]
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
4K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
4K
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K