Gaussian Integrals for Quantum States of well Defined Momentum

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the Gaussian integral in the context of quantum states with well-defined momentum, specifically focusing on the normalization constant associated with the integral and its rationalization. Participants explore the mathematical details and implications of the normalization process.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant seeks clarification on how the normalization constant in the Gaussian integral is rationalized, specifically regarding the constant in the exponential term.
  • Another participant suggests that rationalization refers to normalization, implying that the integral of the probability density function must equal one.
  • A participant expresses confusion about moving quantities between the numerator and denominator in the context of the fourth root, indicating a potential misunderstanding of the algebra involved.
  • One participant provides a detailed algebraic transformation to demonstrate the equivalence of normalization constants, showing stepwise calculations.
  • Another participant notes that the momentum distribution does not represent a definite momentum but rather indicates that both position and momentum are normally distributed, relating their standard deviations.
  • Several participants encourage the original poster to clarify their thought process stepwise to identify any mistakes in their reasoning.
  • One participant acknowledges a change in understanding after reviewing the algebra presented by another, indicating a realization of where they went wrong.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

The discussion contains multiple competing views and interpretations regarding the normalization process and the algebraic transformations involved. There is no consensus on the correct approach or understanding of the rationalization of the constant.

Contextual Notes

Participants express uncertainty about specific algebraic steps and transformations, indicating that assumptions may be missing or that definitions may vary. The discussion remains focused on the mathematical intricacies without resolving the underlying questions.

lukka
Messages
24
Reaction score
0
Consider the Gaussian Integral (eqn 2.64).. is anyone able to explain how the constant of normalization is rationalised?
 

Attachments

  • Position Representation.jpg
    Position Representation.jpg
    48.6 KB · Views: 533
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
If by 'rationalized' you mean 'normalized' so that the integral of the pdf from -inf to + inf = 1, I would think in the usual fashion.
 
Hey SteamKing, thanks for stopping by to help. I'm not referring to the normalisation process here, it's the constant on the exponential I'm having trouble with.. The equation shows a rationalisation of the numerator to give (2∏(hbar)^2 / 4σ^2)^-1/4.

From what i understand if one wants to move a quantity from the numerator under the fourth principal root sign in the denominator, i must change the sign of the exponent and square that quantity twice but it doesn't work out. Perhaps I'm doing something wrong here?
 
Last edited:
It comes from normalizing ##\langle p | \psi \rangle##, that is, requiring that ##| \langle p | \psi \rangle |^2 = 1##.
 
jtbell i apologise for any confusion here but I'm not referring to the normalisation process, it's the constant on the exponential. The equation shows a rationalisation of the numerator to give 1 /(2∏(hbar)^2 / 4σ^2)^1/4.

From what i understand if one wants to move a quantity from the numerator under the fourth principal root sign in the denominator, i must change the sign of the exponent and square that quantity twice but it doesn't work out. Perhaps I'm doing something wrong here?
 
Last edited:
h = 2\pi \hbar

\sqrt[4]{\frac{16\sigma^4\pi^2}{h^2 (2\pi \sigma^2)}} = \sqrt[4]{\frac{16\pi^2\sigma^2}{2\pi h^2}} = \sqrt[4]{\frac{16\sigma^2\pi^2}{2\pi\left(2\pi \hbar\right)^2}}
= \sqrt[4]{\frac{16\sigma^2}{2\pi 4\hbar^2}} = \sqrt[4]{\frac{4\sigma^2}{2\pi \hbar^2}} = \frac{1}{\sqrt[4]{2\pi \left(\hbar^2/(4\sigma^2) \right)}}

The momentum distribution does not describe a definite (well defined) momentum but rather corresponds to the case that both position and momentum are normal distributions, and this equation shows the relation between their standard deviations.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person
lukka said:
it doesn't work out.

If you show us explicitly what you thought it should work out to be, in stepwise fashion, someone can probably tell you what your mistake is.
 
Equation 2.64 implies that the normalisation constants are equivalent. that is..

(2σ √∏) / √h(2∏σ^2)^1/4 = (2∏(hbar)^2 / 4σ^2)^-1/4.

here's the algebra i did..


(2σ √∏) / √h(2∏σ^2)^1/4 = √∏ / (2∏/16σ^2)^1/4 ..

..=√h (2∏/16σ^2 ^∏^2)^-1/4 = (2∏(hbar)^2 / 16σ^2)^-1/4.
 
\frac{2\sigma \pi^{1/2}}{h^{1/2}(2\pi \sigma^2)^{1/4}}=\left [\frac{16\sigma^4\pi^2}{2\pi h^2\sigma^2}\right ]^{1/4}=\left [\frac{16\sigma^2\pi^2}{2\pi (2\pi\hbar)^2}\right ]^{1/4}=\left [\frac{16\sigma^2\pi^2}{8\pi^3 \hbar^2}\right ]^{1/4}=\left[\frac{4\sigma^2}{2\pi \hbar^2}\right ]^{1/4}
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person
  • #10
Hey that's great! i never thought of transforming it that way.. i guess what i was attempting to do at first before was nonsensical although I'm not sure why, it seems they should have revealed the same? I'm sure I'm on the right track with this now. Thanks for going to the time to show me where i was going wrong..
 
  • #11
i can see where i going wrong with this now.. thanks Dauto!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
508
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K