Does the Expectation of Momentum Vanish for a Real Wavefunction?

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the expectation value of momentum for a free particle in one dimension, specifically examining whether this expectation vanishes for purely real wavefunctions. Participants are exploring the implications of wavefunction properties in quantum mechanics.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants are analyzing the conditions under which the expectation value of momentum is zero, questioning the relationship between wavefunction properties and momentum components. There are discussions about the implications of real wavefunctions and the mathematical expressions involved.

Discussion Status

The conversation includes various interpretations of the requirements for the wavefunction to be real and the implications for momentum. Some participants have offered insights into the mathematical reasoning, while others are clarifying misunderstandings about the definitions and conditions necessary for the expectation value to vanish.

Contextual Notes

There is an ongoing debate about the completeness of the proof provided by the original poster, with some participants suggesting that a broader consideration of real wavefunctions is necessary. The discussion also touches on the definitions of terms like "vanish" in the context of quantum mechanics.

Domnu
Messages
176
Reaction score
0
Problem
Consider a free particle moving in one dimension. The state functions for this particle are all elements of [tex]L^2[/tex]. Show that the expectation of the momentum [tex]\langle p_x \rangle[/tex] vanishes in any state that is purely real. Does this property hold for [tex]\langle H \rangle[/tex]? Does it hold for [tex]\langle H \rangle[/tex]?

Solution
For [tex]\langle p_x \rangle[/tex], we have

[tex]\langle p_x \rangle = \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \phi^* \hat{p_x} \phi dx[/tex]
[tex]= - i \hbar \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} (Ae^{ikx} + Be^{-ikx})(-Aik \cdot e^{-ikx} + Bik \cdot e^{ikx}) dx[/tex]
[tex]= -\hbar k \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} [A^2 - B^2][/tex],

since we need to have [tex]kx = n\pi[/tex] to satisfy the condition that the wavefunction must be real. But, the above integral diverges to infinity (assuming that [tex]A \neq B[/tex]).

I'll post the second and third parts a bit later, but have I correctly shown that the expectation of the momentum vanishes?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I would do this:
First try to get purely real functions that are elements of L2; squaring wavefunction gives you something like (A^2 +B^2)* exp(2ikx) + 2AB -> 0, when x-> inf. Considering purely real functions gets you A=-B... put that in your equation in the end and you get desired result.
 
kx=n*pi has nothing to do with the wavefunction being real. Nor does A=(-B). The condition you want is B=conjugate(A). That must be true for every momentum component of the wave function. exp(ikx) and exp(-ikx) represent opposite direction momentum components. What does that tell you?
 
Ah, yes, I understand why this must be true now... because we need [tex]\phi^* = \phi[/tex]... that was a careless error on my part heh. Also, what exactly does it mean for it to 'vanish'? Does this mean go to 0 or go to infinity? Infinity would be nicer...
 
I've never heard of 'vanish' meaning 'go to infinity'. In your example the contribution of the exp(ikx) part is equal and opposite to the contribution of the exp(-ikx) part. They cancel. They are also orthogonal, so there are no cross terms. A general wavefunction is a superposition of such functions where A is a function of time and the wavenumber k, A(k,t). But the conclusion still holds.
 
Hmm... okay i think I understand now. Thanks =)
 
what is the uncertainity of a free particle moving in one dimension
 
Your proof is incomplete: you focus on a very particular type of real wavefunction, namely with a fixed value for [itex]p_x^2[/itex]. However, what you have to prove is that for *any* real wavefunction [itex]\langle p_x\rangle =0.[/itex] There is no need to expand your wavefunction in plane waves, although, as Dick said, it gives a simple intuitive picture for why the momentum is zero on average.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K