Free particle propagation: paradox?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the propagation of a free particle's wavefunction and the implications of using different formulations of the propagator. Participants explore the behavior of wavefunctions supported on finite intervals and the paradoxes that arise when considering their time evolution.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant cites Shankar's formulation of the free particle propagator and discusses its implications for the evolution of wavefunctions, particularly when the initial wavefunction is Gaussian.
  • The same participant presents a specific initial wavefunction that is smooth and supported on the interval [-1, 1], questioning the implications of this choice on the wavefunction's propagation over time.
  • Another participant points out that the Green's function mentioned is specific to free particles and cannot be applied to systems like an infinite square well, suggesting a misapplication of the propagator.
  • A different participant clarifies that the original discussion pertains to a free particle scenario, not a particle in a square well.
  • One participant raises concerns about the convergence of the series solution to the Schrödinger equation, suggesting that it may not converge uniformly for the given initial wavefunction.
  • Another participant requests clarification on a previous comment, indicating a lack of understanding of the technical points being discussed.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the applicability of the propagator and the nature of the wavefunction's evolution. There is no consensus on whether the series solution converges uniformly or on the implications of the initial wavefunction's properties.

Contextual Notes

Participants note limitations regarding the assumptions made about the initial wavefunction and the conditions under which the propagator is applied. The discussion highlights the complexities involved in analyzing wavefunction behavior in quantum mechanics.

Kostik
Messages
274
Reaction score
32
Shankar ("Principles of Quantum Mechanics", 2nd ed.) shows that the free particle propagator "matrix element" is given by (see p. 153):

## \qquad \langle x | U(t) | x' \rangle = U(x,t;x') = \left(\frac{m}{2\pi\hbar it}\right)^{1/2} e^{im(x-x')^2/2m\hbar} ##,

which can be used to evaluate the evolution of the particle's wavefunction in time, starting from its initial wavefunction:

## \qquad \psi(x,t) = \int_{-\infty}^\infty U(x,t;x') \, \psi(x',0) \, dx'##

But there is an alternate formulation:

## \qquad \psi(x,t) = \langle x | U(t) |\psi(0)\rangle = \langle x | e^{-iHt/\hbar} |\psi(0)\rangle = \sum_{n=0}^{\infty} \frac{1}{n!} \left(\frac{i\hbar t}{2m} \right)^n \frac{d^{2n}}{dx^{2n}} \, \psi(x) \qquad\qquad (\star) ##

He shows (p. 154-5) that if the initial wavefunction ##\psi(x,0)## is a Gaussian, then it spreads out in time, and explains why.

Exercise 5.1.4 (p. 156) gives a somewhat unsatisfying example of an initial wavefunction supported on the interval ##[-L/2, L/2]## (i.e., identically zero outside this interval). Hence a "paradox" using the ##(\star)## form of the propagator, because clearly all derivatives are zero outside the interval, so the wavefunction cannot spread in time (paradox). But the example given is discontinuous at the endpoints of the interval, so the derivatives do not exist.

But what if the initial wavefunction is the function

## \qquad \psi(x,0) =
\begin{cases}
e^{-1/(1-x^2)} & |x|<1 \\
0 & |x| \geq 1
\end{cases}
##

(I have not normalized ##\psi##, but never mind.) This function is supported on ##[-1, 1]## (identically zero outside the interval) and has infinitely many continuous derivatives on ##(-\infty, \infty)##.

I would not know how to tackle this scary-looking integral:

## \qquad \psi(x,t) = \int_{-\infty}^\infty U(x,t;x') \, \psi(x',0) \, dx'##

## \qquad = \left(\frac{m}{2\pi\hbar it}\right)^{1/2} \int_{-\infty}^\infty e^{im(x-x')^2/2m\hbar} \, \psi(x',0) \, dx' ##

## \qquad = \left(\frac{m}{2\pi\hbar it}\right)^{1/2} \int_{-1}^1 e^{im(x-x')^2/2m\hbar} e^{-1/(1-x'^2)} \, dx'##

BUT it does seem clear that using the alternative form ##(\star)##

## \qquad \psi(x,t) = \sum_{n=0}^{\infty} \frac{1}{n!} \left(\frac{i\hbar t}{2m} \right)^n \frac{d^{2n}}{dx^{2n}} \psi(x,0)##

that ## \psi(x,t) ## continues to be supported within ##[-1, 1]##. In other words, ## \psi(x,t) ## never spreads outside the interval ##[-1, 1]##!

Is this not a paradox? There must be uncertainty in the initial velocity (momentum), which should result in a growing uncertainty in the position with increasing time. Yet the particle remains inside ##[-1, 1]## forever!
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
The Green's function you quote is for a free particle. Regardless of what the initial state is, you cannot use the free particle Green's function for an infinite square well because it is not a Green's function of the problem you are trying to solve.
 
From what I can see he is not talking about a particle in a square well but a free particle with the initial wavepacket given by the function he wrote.
 
andresb - exactly right.
 
Ok, so instead we are dealing with a situation where you expect he wave function to be completely given by its value and its derivatives in one point. This is not true for the function you have given, the series will only be a solution to the Schrödinger equation if it converges uniformly, which I strongly suspect it does not.
 
I'm sorry I don't understand your comment. Can you please rephrase with more clarity?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K