Free particle wave function confusion.

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the wave function for a free particle in quantum mechanics, specifically referencing Griffith's textbook. It establishes that for a free particle, stationary states do not exist, leading to the conclusion that the wave function cannot be expressed as a discrete sum but rather as a continuous integral: ψ(x,t)=∫dkφ(k)ei(kx-ωt). The confusion arises regarding the treatment of scattering states in a delta function potential, which can be expressed as a sum of stationary states despite the continuous nature of free particle solutions. The presence of a potential at x=0 is crucial in differentiating between bound and free states.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Schrödinger Equation (SE) in quantum mechanics
  • Familiarity with wave functions and their normalization
  • Knowledge of scattering theory and bound vs. free states
  • Concept of Hilbert space in quantum mechanics
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the implications of non-normalizable wave functions in quantum mechanics
  • Explore the concept of scattering states in delta function potentials
  • Learn about the role of potentials in determining bound and free states
  • Investigate the mathematical formulation of continuous spectra in quantum systems
USEFUL FOR

Students of quantum mechanics, physicists specializing in quantum theory, and anyone seeking to deepen their understanding of wave functions and scattering theory.

Oz123
Messages
29
Reaction score
0
Member reminded to use the homework template for posts in the homework sections of PF.
Hi! I'm currently studying Griffith's fantastic book on QM, and I'm confused for a bit about the wave function for a free particle.
Here's what I think so far; for a free particle, there are no stationary states, so therefore we can't solve the SE with
ψ(x)=Aeikx+Be-ikx

That is, we can't write a discrete sum. But We can have solutions as:

ψ(x,t)=∫dkφ(k)ei(kx-ωt)

I don't know if my understanding is correct, so please tell me so. Now, I assume that this understanding is correct and get to the question: If the solutions can only be the latter, then why was the solution from the book for the scattering states in the delta function potential a sum of stationary states and not the continuous sum? Also, why is it the same for the bound states if we are solving for the free particle when x<0 and x>0? Is it because it has a potential at x=0?
Thanks in advanced!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Oz123 said:
Here's what I think so far; for a free particle, there are no stationary states, so therefore we can't solve the SE with
ψ(x)=Aeikx+Be-ikx
These functions do solve the Schrödinger equation, but they are not normalisable and therefore not actually in the relevant Hilbert space of square integrable functions.

Oz123 said:
If the solutions can only be the latter, then why was the solution from the book for the scattering states in the delta function potential a sum of stationary states and not the continuous sum?
Generally, in scattering theory, you will look at an in-state of definite momentum. Of course, the actual physical state is a superposition of such states and not a plane wave. However, in many cases, looking at just an incoming plane wave solution is a sufficiently accurate description.

Oz123 said:
Also, why is it the same for the bound states if we are solving for the free particle when x<0 and x>0? Is it because it has a potential at x=0?
Thanks in advanced!
In the case of a scattering potential, you will often have both bound and free states. The bound states correspond to energy levels with an energy lower than the energy at ##\pm\infty## and are generally discrete while the free scattering states show a continuous spectrum. In both cases you have to find the solutions to the Schrödinger equation in all of space.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Oz123

Similar threads

Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
8
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K