Gaussian wave packet in position space

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the Gaussian wave packet in position space and its representation in momentum space. Participants explore the mathematical expressions for the wave packets, the process of inverse Fourier transformation, and the discrepancies observed between analytical and numerical results in MATLAB.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents the expression for the Gaussian wave packet in momentum space and notes the observed Gaussian profile when plotted.
  • Another participant suggests that as long as the wave packet is normalized, the numerical results may not indicate a problem, depending on parameter values.
  • A participant expresses confusion over the numerical transformation yielding values around ##10^{-6}##, indicating that the wave packet appears almost zero everywhere.
  • Participants discuss the normalization of the wave packets and provide alternative expressions for the wave packet in position space derived from the inverse Fourier transformation.
  • One participant raises the issue of whether the relationship ##p=\hbar k## has been considered, suggesting it could affect the scaling in position space.
  • Another participant confirms that the analytic formulas are correct under the assumption of ##\hbar=1##, implying the issue lies within the MATLAB implementation rather than the physics itself.
  • Concerns are raised about the normalization factors in the Fourier transform process, particularly regarding the ##1/N## factor in the inverse FFT and its potential impact on the results.
  • Participants discuss the necessity of multiplying by ##dx## or ##dp## when summing components for normalization, indicating ongoing uncertainty about the numerical results.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the cause of the discrepancies between analytical and numerical results. There are competing views regarding the impact of normalization and the Fourier transform implementation.

Contextual Notes

Participants express uncertainty about the normalization process in numerical evaluations and the implications of the ##1/N## factor in the Fourier transform. The discussion highlights the dependence on parameter choices and the potential for different interpretations of the results.

KFC
Messages
477
Reaction score
4
Hi all,
The Gaussian wave packet is widely discussed in the text. I got the following expression for wave packet in momentum space

##\psi(p, 0) = A \exp\left[-(p-p_0)^2/ (2\sigma_p^2)\right]##
with ##A=\sqrt{2\sigma_p/\sqrt{2\pi}}##

As my understanding, the corresponding wave packet in position space should be inverse Fourier transformation of ##\psi(p, 0)##. I plot the ##\psi(p, 0)## in matlab, I saw the Gaussian profile. But when I take the inverse Fourier transformation ifftshift(ifft(psi)), I saw something of the order ##10^{-6}##. I have no idea why is it.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
KFC said:
I saw something of the order 10−610^{-6}
So long as it's normalized, what's the problem? It depends on how you set the parameter values anyway.
 
The problem is after the numerical transformation, all samples for the packet is about ##10^{-6}## instead of ranged from 0 to ##10^{-6}## that means it is almost zero everywhere. Let me restate my question with some code and data. I think I made an mistake in the first post, here is the Guassian in momentum

##
\psi(p) = \sqrt{\dfrac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}\sigma_p}}\exp\left[-\dfrac{(p-p_0)^2}{4\sigma_p^2}\right]
##

If you integrate this in mathematica, ##\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} |\psi(p)|^2dp = 1##. I also tried to find the wave packet in position by inverse Fourier transformation, I got

##
\phi(x) = \sqrt{\dfrac{2\sigma_p}{\sqrt{2\pi}}} \exp\left[-\sigma_p x^2\right]\exp(ip_0x)
##

and ##\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} |\phi(x)|^2dx = 1##. Plotting those functions with ##p_0=0, \sigma_p=1##, we observe that ##|\psi(p)|^2## with minimum and maximum as 0 and about 0.9; the minimum and maximum for ##|\phi(x)|^2## is about 0 to 1.2

Now doing numerical evaluation by matlab, I try

p0 = 0;
sigma_beta = 1;
psi = sqrt(1/sqrt(2*pi)/sigma_beta);*exp(-((p-p0).^2)/(4*sigma_beta^2));
phi = ifftshift(ifft(psi));

plot(abs(phi).^2);

The range for the plot is about ##10^{-5}## and is we sum over the ##|\phi|^2##, I've got 5.9921e-04 while the sum of ##|\psi|^2## gives 1. See the attachment (don't know why it upload twice and seems I cannot remove one of them)
 

Attachments

  • untitled2.jpg
    untitled2.jpg
    10.3 KB · Views: 509
  • untitled2.jpg
    untitled2.jpg
    10.3 KB · Views: 502
KFC said:
I also tried to find the wave packet in position by inverse Fourier transformation, I got

##
\phi(x) = \sqrt{\dfrac{2\sigma_p}{\sqrt{2\pi}}} \exp\left[-\sigma_p x^2\right]\exp(ip_0x)
##
I haven't checked your calculation, but I just want to confirm, have you considered that ##p=\hbar k##? Forgetting this may also affect the scaling of the wavepacket in position space, and hence the numerical integration.
 
Thanks for your reply. I rescale the system with ##\hbar=1##. Moreover, in both analytical calculation (mathematica) and numerical one (matlab), I have the same scale (##\hbar=1##). so the result should be identical. But they are not. My question is why the numerical one doesn't give the same one from analytical expression.
 
Your analytic formulas seem to be correct, provided that you set ##\hbar=1##. So you have a MATLAB problem, not a physics problem.
 
Last edited:
KFC said:
I've got 5.9921e-04 while the sum of ##|\psi|^2## gives 1. See the attachment (don't know why it upload twice and seems I cannot remove one of them)
Do you simply sum up the components, or do you also multiply by ##dx## or ##dp##?

While ifft(fft(psi)) should recover the original psi, I don't know what normalization of the single action of fft or ifft should be. From what I can gather from the manual, there is a ##1/N## factor in ifft, with nothing for the forward fft, so that might be the origin of the scaling you see.
 
Thanks for reply. Yes, I sum up all components and multiply it with dx or dp to test normalization.
For fft part, yes, it has the 1/N in front of series, I've already taking that factor in consideration, but still no help.
 
KFC said:
it has the 1/N in front of series, I've already taking that factor in consideration, but still no help.
How?

KFC said:
p0 = 0;
sigma_beta = 1;
psi = sqrt(1/sqrt(2*pi)/sigma_beta);*exp(-((p-p0).^2)/(4*sigma_beta^2));
phi = ifftshift(ifft(psi));

plot(abs(phi).^2);
I don't see anything in there that involves N.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 61 ·
3
Replies
61
Views
6K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K