Expectation values of harmonic oscillator in general state

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the expectation values of the potential energy in a harmonic oscillator described by a general superposition of energy eigenstates. Participants explore the relationship between the average potential energy, , and the average total energy, , particularly questioning whether equals (1/2) in non-stationary states.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant posits that for a superposition of energy eigenstates, should equal (1/2) , based on the individual contributions from each eigenstate.
  • Another participant argues that the superposition state is no longer stationary, implying that the derivation of the virial theorem may not apply.
  • A different participant acknowledges the non-stationarity but maintains that the equality (t) = (1/2) should still hold.
  • Another participant challenges this view by providing a counterexample involving the ground state being translated far from the potential minimum, suggesting that does not equal (1/2) under such conditions due to cross terms arising in the superposition.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on whether can equal (1/2) in non-stationary states, indicating a lack of consensus on the validity of this relationship in the context of a superposition of energy eigenstates.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights the complexity of expectation values in non-stationary states and the potential influence of cross terms in superpositions, which may complicate the straightforward application of the virial theorem.

Jomenvisst
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
So, this has been bothering me for a while.

Lets say we have the wavefunction of a harmonic oscillator as a general superposition of energy eigenstates:

\Psi = \sum c_{n} \psi _{n} exp(i(E_{n}-E_{m})t/h)

Is it true in this case that <V> =(1/2) <E> .

I tried calculating this but i get something like

<V> = < \Psi |V| \Psi > = (1/2)<E> + some other term that does not seem to be zero generally.

However, it seems to me that <V> =(1/2) <E> should be true even in this case, since
&lt;V&gt;_{n} = &lt;\psi_{n} | V | \psi_{n} &gt; = (1/2) &lt;E&gt; for every n.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The superposition state is no longer stationary. The derivation of the virial theorem (Davydov, Sect 17 from Chapter II) will not be valid.
 
Thank you for the answer.

I agree with that, but that doesn't necessarily mean that <V>(t) != (1/2) <E>. I still feel the equality should hold.
 
To see that it shouldn't hold, imagine taking the ground state and translating it very far from the minimum of the potential. This doesn't change the kinetic energy, but makes the potential energy very large. Clearly, <V> no longer equals (1/2)<E>.

This comes from the fact that when you compute <V> in your superposition of energy eigenstates, you will get a bunch of cross terms between the energy eigenstates that spoil the relation <V> = (1/2)<E>
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K