Harmonic oscillator coherent state wavefunction

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the wavefunction of a coherent state of the harmonic oscillator, specifically addressing the method used to derive it and the issues encountered regarding normalization and time evolution. The scope includes theoretical aspects of quantum mechanics and the Schrödinger equation.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant describes their approach to finding the coherent state wavefunction using the lowering operator and expresses confusion about why their method does not yield a normalized state.
  • The participant notes that the time evolution of the eigenvalue b leads to a wavefunction that does not satisfy the Schrödinger equation, raising questions about the conservation of probability density.
  • Another participant provides a link to a manuscript that may offer additional insights into coherent states.
  • A different participant requests clarification on the time evolution relation mentioned, questioning its validity and seeking a source for it.
  • One participant asserts that the relation for b(t) is valid in the Heisenberg picture and cautions against mixing different time evolution pictures, offering a link to their own lecture notes for further reference.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the method described for deriving the coherent state wavefunction and the implications of time evolution in quantum mechanics. There is no consensus on the validity of the approach or the interpretation of the results.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight potential confusion arising from the mixing of the Schrödinger and Heisenberg pictures of time evolution, which may contribute to the issues raised regarding normalization and the behavior of the wavefunction over time.

quantum539
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Hi, I am trying to find the wavefunction of a coherent state of the harmonic oscillator ( potential mw2x2/2 ) with eigenvalue of the lowering operator: b.

I know you can do this is many ways, but I cannot figure out why this particular method does not work.

It can be shown (and you can find this easily on the internet) that the eigenvalue b evolves as:

b(t)=b0e-iwtWhat I did was find the coherent state wavefunction u(x,t) by using the eigenfunction equation with the lowering operator a:

a[u(x,t)]=b*u(x,t)

with a=(mwx+(h-bar)*d/dx)/sqrt(2mw(h-bar))

that gives

u(x,t)=const*e-(1/l2)*(x-l*b)2

where l=sqrt(2(h-bar)/mw)
now, when I put in the time evolution of b I get:

u(x,t)=const*e-(1/l2)*(x-lb0e-iwt)2

(I plugged in b(t) from before in for b)
This state does not satisfy the Schrödinger equation, for one thing it cannot be normalized because the integral over all x of the norm squared of the wavefunction varies in time.

This confuses me because b(t) comes from treating the coherent state as a superposition of harmonic oscillator energy eigenstates, which come from the Schrödinger equation. Since the Schrödinger equation conserves the integral over all x of probability density, why do I get a state which does not do so from harmonic oscilator states (and thus, by extension, the Schrödinger equation)?

Thanks so much in advance, I have done this over several times over the last day and cannot find out anything I did wrong nor a solution online.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Thanks,

But I was wondering if someone knows why the method I described does not work.
 
quantum539 said:
Thanks,

But I was wondering if someone knows why the method I described does not work.

You said in your original post:

quantum539 said:
It can be shown (and you can find this easily on the internet) that the eigenvalue b evolves as:
b(t)=b_0e^{-iwt}

Could you give a URL to where this is shown? It doesn't make sense to me.
 
This relation is true in the Heisenberg picture of time evolution, and one must not mix these pictures as in the original posting. I have a treatment of the problem in my QM lecture notes, but only in German, but there are many formulae; so perhaps it's possible to understand the calculations:

http://theory.gsi.de/~vanhees/faq/quant/node51.html
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
947
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K