Free Particle Mass m: Probability and Wavefunction Solutions

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the wavefunction of a free particle of mass m in one dimension, specifically analyzing the initial state given by \(\psi(x, 0) = \sin(k_0 x)\). Participants explore the implications of this wavefunction regarding its validity, normalization, and the probabilities associated with momentum measurements.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants question the validity of the initial wavefunction as a state function for a free particle, particularly its non-square integrability. There is discussion about the nature of free particle wavefunctions and their localization. Some participants attempt to derive the time-dependent wavefunction and evaluate the momentum probabilities, raising questions about the continuity of momentum values and the evaluation of integrals.

Discussion Status

The discussion is active, with participants providing insights and clarifications regarding the representation of the wavefunction in terms of momentum eigenfunctions. Some have identified the relationship between the sine function and exponential functions, while others are exploring normalization and the implications of measurement outcomes. There is no explicit consensus, but productive lines of reasoning are being developed.

Contextual Notes

Participants are navigating the complexities of quantum mechanics, particularly the properties of wavefunctions and the implications of measurements in a continuous spectrum. The discussion reflects the constraints of the problem as a homework assignment, with an emphasis on understanding rather than providing direct solutions.

Domnu
Messages
176
Reaction score
0
Problem
A free particle of mass [tex]m[/tex] moving in one dimension is known to be in the initial state

[tex]\psi(x, 0) = \sin(k_0 x)[/tex]

a) What is [tex]\psi(x, t)[/tex]?
b) What value of [tex]p[/tex] will measurement yield at the time [tex]t[/tex], and with what probabilities will these values occur?
c) Suppose that [tex]p[/tex] is measured at [tex]t=3 s[/tex] and the value [tex]\hbar k_0[/tex] is found. What is [tex]\psi(x, t)[/tex] at [tex]t > 3 s[/tex]?

Attempt at Solutions
Well one question I have is this: how is this a valid state function for a free particle if it is non-square integrable? Generally, for any free particle, doesn't the wavefunction have to be square-integrable?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Exactly the opposite. In general, free particles having wavefunctions like exp(ikx) are NOT square integrable. Since they aren't localized.
 
Okay, so part a) would then just be

[tex]\psi(x,t) = e^{-i \omega_0 t} \sin k_0 x[/tex]​

since [tex]\psi(x,0)[/tex] is an eigenfunction of the momentum operator. Now, when I try to evaluate part b), I get

[tex]b(k) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2 \pi}} \int_{-\infty}^\infty \sin k_0 x e^{-ikx} dx[/tex]

where [tex]\int_{a}^b |b(k)|^2 dk[/tex] represents the probability of a particle having a wavenumber between [tex]a[/tex] and [tex]b[/tex]. How do I actually evaluate the above integral? Also, the question asks for the probability of certain momenta... how is this allowed if momenta aren't discrete but are, instead, continuous?
 
You are making this much harder than it actually is. sin(k0*x) is a linear combination of exactly two momentum eigenfunctions exp(ikx). Which two? Don't think 'integral', think 'deMoivre'.
 
Aah, I see it now... sin(k0*x) = 1/2 exp(i*k0*x) - 1/2 exp(-i*k0*x). But we need to normalize this... so we finally have

[tex]\psi(x, t) = e^{-i \omega_0 t} \cdot \left(\frac{\sqrt{2}}{2} \phi_{k_0} - \frac{\sqrt{2}}{2} \phi_{-k_0}\right)[/tex]​

Thus, the particle has a 50% chance of having momenta [tex]\pm \hbar k_0[/tex]. This solves part b). As for part c), the wavefunction collapses onto

[tex]\psi(x, 0) = e^{-i \omega_0 t} \cdot \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}} e^{i k_0 x}[/tex]​
 
Actually, it's sin(kx)=(exp(ikx)-exp(-ikx))/(2i). And you don't need to do any particular normalization. The only thing that's important is that the magnitude of the two coefficients are equal.
 
Heh, yes that's what I meant :P Thanks a bunch :smile:
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K