Gradient of product of wave functions

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the mathematical properties of the gradient of the inner product of wave functions, particularly in the context of quantum mechanics. Participants explore the implications of taking gradients of products of wave functions and the conditions under which certain expressions may or may not be zero.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests that the gradient of the inner product of two wave functions should be zero, arguing that the product is a complex number.
  • Another participant questions the utility of the gradient in this context and asks for clarification on the spatial coordinate with respect to which the gradient is taken.
  • A different participant asserts that the operation does not make sense, emphasizing that the gradient is a derivative with respect to spatial coordinates and cannot be applied to an integral over wave functions.
  • One participant clarifies that they meant to discuss the gradient inside the integral, specifically referring to Dirac's notation.
  • Another participant counters that the inner product of the momentum operator acting on wave functions is not generally zero, suggesting that counterexamples exist.
  • A later reply attempts to clarify the original question, stating that the expression involving the gradient of the product of wave functions should be zero under certain conditions, specifically when considering the product of probability amplitudes.
  • One participant firmly states that the gradient of the product of two arbitrary wave functions is not zero, noting that while the integral over this product may be constant, the product itself is not.
  • Another participant mentions a mathematical identity related to the divergence theorem, indicating that the integral of the gradient can be expressed as a surface integral, which vanishes under certain conditions for physically reasonable wave functions.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the validity and implications of taking gradients of products of wave functions. There is no consensus on whether the gradient of the inner product is zero, and multiple competing views remain throughout the discussion.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations in the assumptions made regarding the spatial coordinates and the nature of the wave functions involved. The discussion also touches on the conditions under which certain mathematical expressions hold true.

doktorglas
Messages
10
Reaction score
0
Hi,

Short question: If you take the inner product of two arbitrary wave functions, and then the gradient of that, the result should be zero, right? (Since the product is just a complex number.) Am I missing something?

∇∫dΩψ_{1}*ψ_{2} = 0
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Sure, you get the 0 vector in R^n, but what would you use that gradient for ?
 
J.L.A.N. said:
Hi,

Short question: If you take the inner product of two arbitrary wave functions, and then the gradient of that, the result should be zero, right? (Since the product is just a complex number.) Am I missing something?

∇∫dΩψ_{1}*ψ_{2} = 0

I don't think this operation makes sense. The gradient is a derivative with respect to a spatial coordinate. What spatial coordinate are you differentiating with respect to? It must not be a coordinate you have already integrated over in the inner product.
 
The_Duck is right. The expression is meaningless.

The gradient is related to the momentum operator. But the momentum operator acts on wave functions, not on scalar products i.e. not on integrals over wave functions.
 
Thanks for the answers, but I'm sorry, I made an error in the formulation of the question. What I really meant was with the gradient inside of the integral, that is <p psi1 | psi2> in Dirac's notation. What I need is the gradient of (psi1-conjugate times psi2) to be zero for a proof I was thinking about.
 
It's certainly not the case that ##\langle \hat p \psi_1 | \psi_2 \rangle = 0## in general. It's not hard to come up with counterexamples; try it out.
 
Well, it turns out that I partly misformulated myself again, and was somewhat right from the beginning. I will try to make sense now, and put it in a little more context. What I want to be zero is the following expression:

-i\hbar∫dΩ(\overline{ψ_{1}}∇ψ_{2}+(∇\overline{ψ_{1}})ψ_{2}) = -i\hbar∫dΩ∇(\overline{ψ_{1}}ψ_{2})

which means ∇(\overline{ψ_{1}}ψ_{2}) would have to be zero, which I figured it was since (\overline{ψ_{1}}ψ_{2}) is a constant - the product of the probability amplitudes.
 
No.

##\nabla (\bar{\psi}_1 \psi_2) \neq 0##

in general (for arbitrary wave functions. The product of two wave functions is not a constant (only the integral over this product is a constant).

But

## \int dV \, \nabla (\bar{\psi}_1 \psi_2) = \oint dS \, (\bar{\psi}_1 \psi_2) ##

and this vanishes for physically reasonable wave functions with

##\lim_{r\to\infty}\psi(r)= 0##
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
6K
  • · Replies 61 ·
3
Replies
61
Views
6K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K