Definition of a Gaussian wave packet for a Initial State

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the definition of a Gaussian wave packet in quantum mechanics, specifically regarding the initial state ket and its representation in terms of a continuous variable. Participants explore the mathematical formulation and implications of the definitions provided in a didactic paper.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the definition of the initial state ket, suggesting that the integral representation may be flawed and proposing an alternative formulation.
  • Another participant responds by discussing the role of the identity operator and the completeness relation in the context of continuous variables, emphasizing the need for proper integration over the basis states.
  • A later reply reiterates the confusion regarding the inner product and the integral of the wave function, indicating a misunderstanding of the relationship between the two.
  • One participant clarifies that the inner product for continuous variables involves the Dirac delta function, contrasting it with the discrete case.
  • Another participant emphasizes the importance of using distinct variables when applying the identity operator to avoid confusion in the inner product calculations.
  • A final response expresses gratitude for the clarification, indicating that the discussion has helped resolve their confusion.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the validity of the initial state ket definition and the appropriate use of variables in the context of continuous variables. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the initial definition, with multiple competing interpretations presented.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations in the original definition, particularly concerning the treatment of continuous variables and the application of the identity operator. There is an emphasis on the need for rigor in mathematical expressions, especially in quantum mechanics.

Gabriel Maia
Messages
70
Reaction score
1
Hi :)

I'm reading a didactic paper and the author defined the initial state ket as

|\Phi_{in}> = {\int}dq\phi_{in}(q)|q>

where q is a coordinate and

\phi_{in}(q) = <q|\Phi_{in}> = exp\left[\frac{-q^{2}}{4\Delta^{2}}\right]

I don't know if I'm missing something but isn't this definition a little flawed? I mean if you calculate the inner product of <q| with the first equation, <q|q>=1, sure, but that does not eliminate the integral, right?

I'm thinking the correct definition would be

|\Phi_{in}> = \phi_{in}(q)|q>

with

\phi_{in}(q) = <q|\Phi_{in}> = exp\left[\frac{-q^{2}}{4\Delta^{2}}\right]Thank you
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Just think of the unitary operator acting on |Φ_{in}&gt;
\hat{1}|Φ_{in}&gt;
but then, you also know (complete basis) that:
\hat{1}= \sum_{q} |q&gt;&lt;q| \rightarrow \int dq |q&gt;&lt;q|
the arrow is for a continuous q variable...
By that you get everything straightforwardly...

In the same way, you can get:

&lt;Φ_{in}|Φ_{in}&gt;= \int dq&#039; dq φ^{*}(q&#039;)φ(q) &lt;q&#039;|q&gt;
&lt;Φ_{in}|Φ_{in}&gt;= \int dq&#039; dq φ^{*}(q&#039;)φ(q) δ(q&#039;-q)
integrating out q' due to the delta function you get:
&lt;Φ_{in}|Φ_{in}&gt;= \int dq φ^{*}(q)φ(q) =1
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person
I see... so

<q|\Phi_{in}> = <q|\hat{I}|\Phi_{in}>

right? But then

<q|\Phi_{in}> = <q|\hat{I}|\Phi_{in}> = {\int}dq\phi_{in}(q)

and the integral of \phi_{in}(q) is not the same as = \phi_{in}(q)

what is happening here?

Thank you.
 
you are confusing the brackets... If you have a continuous variable, then you can't generally say that <q|q>=1. This happens only for discrete ones, because the discrete version of dirac's delta function is the delta of kroenicker...
In fact you have to generalize it for continuous variables, and as I used above:
&lt;q&#039;|q&gt;= δ(q&#039;-q)
in the same way for discrete variables you had:
&lt;m|n&gt;=δ_{mn}

also avoid using the same q everywhere... since you are already taking the bra <q| in <q|Φin> when you wrote the identity operator you should have used a new symbol like |q'><q'| or generally |something else><something else|
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person
wait for it... wait for it...

I cannot use the very same variable in \hat{I}={\int}dq|q&gt;&lt;q| and in the <q| I took the inner product with, right? The identity operator must be something like

\hat{I}={\int}dq&#039;|q&#039;&gt;&lt;q&#039;|

This will give me (when I take the inner product with <q|) a Dirac delta and save the day.

I mean... this is the rigourous precedure, right?

Thank you.
 
Thank you very much :) Saved my day!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
6K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K