How Do Function Widths and Uncertainty Principles Relate in Quantum Mechanics?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ognik
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Functions
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the relationship between function widths and uncertainty principles in quantum mechanics, specifically focusing on the calculation of wave functions and their properties. Participants are analyzing the Fourier transform of a given function in momentum space and exploring the implications of the uncertainty principle.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants are attempting to compute the wave function ##\psi(x, 0)## using the provided function ##\phi(k_x)## and are discussing the implications of their calculations on the uncertainty product ##\Delta x \Delta k_x##. There are questions about the correctness of their expressions and the behavior of the resulting functions.

Discussion Status

Several participants have offered insights into the calculations, pointing out potential errors and suggesting corrections. There is an ongoing exploration of the functional form of the wave function and its characteristics, with some participants questioning the use of Taylor expansions and their implications on periodicity.

Contextual Notes

Participants are navigating the complexities of quantum mechanics and the mathematical intricacies of Fourier transforms. There is a recognition of the limitations of Taylor expansions in capturing periodic behavior, and some participants express uncertainty about their results and seek further clarification on specific points.

ognik
Messages
626
Reaction score
2

Homework Statement


## \phi(k_x) = \begin{cases}\phantom{-}
\sqrt{2 \pi},\; \bar{k_x} - \frac{\delta}{2} \le k_x \le \bar{k_x} + \frac{\delta}{2} \\
- \sqrt{2 \pi},\; \bar{k_x} - \delta \le k_x \le \bar{k_x} - \frac{\delta}{2} \:AND \: \bar{k_x} + \frac{\delta}{2} \le k_x \le \bar{k_x} + \delta
\end{cases} ##
Calculate ## \psi(x, 0) ## and find ##\Delta x \Delta k_x ##

Homework Equations


## \psi(x, 0) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2 \pi}} \int^{\infty}_{-\infty} \phi(k_x) e^{i k_x x} dk_x ##

The Attempt at a Solution


Firstly, ## \Delta k_x = 2 \delta ##

## \psi(x, 0) = -\int^{k_x - \frac{\delta}{2}}_{k_x - \delta} e^{i k_x x} dk_x +\int^{k_x + \frac{\delta}{2}}_{k_x - \frac{\delta}{2}} e^{i k_x x} dk_x -\int^{k_x + \delta}_{k_x + \frac{\delta}{2}} e^{i k_x x} dk_x ##

## = \frac{1}{i x} [ -e^{i k_x x (\bar{k_x} - \frac{\delta}{2})} + e^{i k_x x (\bar{k_x} - \delta)}
+ e^{i k_x x (\bar{k_x} +\frac{\delta}{2})} - e^{i k_x x (\bar{k_x} - \frac{\delta}{2})}
- e^{i k_x x (\bar{k_x} +\delta)} + e^{i k_x x (\bar{k_x} + \frac{\delta}{2})}
] ##

## = \frac{1}{i x} e^{i x \bar{k_x}} [ -2 (e^{i x \frac{\delta}{2}} - e^{-i x \frac{\delta}{2}}) - (e^{i x \delta} - e^{-i x \delta}) ##

## = \frac{1}{i x} e^{i x \bar{k_x}} [4 sin(x \frac{\delta}{2}) - 2sin(x \delta) ] ##

## = \frac{1}{i x} e^{i x \bar{k_x}} [ 2 \delta sinc (\frac{x \delta}{2}) - \delta sinc (x \delta )] ##

Taylor to 2 terms...
## [...] = 2 \delta (1 - \frac{(x \delta)^2}{6} ) - \delta (1 - \frac{(x \delta)^2}{6} ) ##

## = 2 \delta - \frac{x^2 \delta^3}{12} - \delta + \frac{x^2 \delta^3}{6} ##

## = \delta (1 + \frac{x^2 \delta^2}{12} ) ##

## \therefore \frac{1}{2} |\psi |^2 = \frac{\delta^2}{2} (1 + \frac{x^2 \delta^2}{12} ) ^2 ##

I hope this is right so far, please check? When I plot this in Wolfram I get a positive parabola, so no maximum, so I must have done something wrong but can't find it ...
 
Physics news on Phys.org
ognik said:

Homework Statement


## \phi(k_x) = \begin{cases}\phantom{-}
\sqrt{2 \pi},\; \bar{k_x} - \frac{\delta}{2} \le k_x \le \bar{k_x} + \frac{\delta}{2} \\
- \sqrt{2 \pi},\; \bar{k_x} - \delta \le k_x \le \bar{k_x} - \frac{\delta}{2} \:AND \: \bar{k_x} + \frac{\delta}{2} \le k_x \le \bar{k_x} + \delta
\end{cases} ##
Calculate ## \psi(x, 0) ## and find ##\Delta x \Delta k_x ##

Homework Equations


## \psi(x, 0) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2 \pi}} \int^{\infty}_{-\infty} \phi(k_x) e^{i k_x x} dk_x ##

The Attempt at a Solution


Firstly, ## \Delta k_x = 2 \delta ##

## \psi(x, 0) = -\int^{k_x - \frac{\delta}{2}}_{k_x - \delta} e^{i k_x x} dk_x +\int^{k_x + \frac{\delta}{2}}_{k_x - \frac{\delta}{2}} e^{i k_x x} dk_x -\int^{k_x + \delta}_{k_x + \frac{\delta}{2}} e^{i k_x x} dk_x ##

## = \frac{1}{i x} [ -e^{i k_x x (\bar{k_x} - \frac{\delta}{2})} + e^{i k_x x (\bar{k_x} - \delta)}
+ e^{i k_x x (\bar{k_x} +\frac{\delta}{2})} - e^{i k_x x (\bar{k_x} - \frac{\delta}{2})}
- e^{i k_x x (\bar{k_x} +\delta)} + e^{i k_x x (\bar{k_x} + \frac{\delta}{2})}
] ##
...
The first thing I see is that you still have k_x in the exponent, even though that was your variable of integration.
## = \frac{1}{i x} [ -e^{i x (\bar{k_x} - \frac{\delta}{2})} + e^{i x (\bar{k_x} - \delta)}
+ e^{ix (\bar{k_x} +\frac{\delta}{2})} - e^{ix (\bar{k_x} - \frac{\delta}{2})}
- e^{ix (\bar{k_x} +\delta)} + e^{ix (\bar{k_x} + \frac{\delta}{2})}
] ##
## = \frac{1}{i x} e^{i x \bar{k_x}} [ -2 (e^{i x \frac{\delta}{2}} - e^{-i x \frac{\delta}{2}}) - (e^{i x \delta} - e^{-i x \delta}) ##

## = \frac{1}{i x} e^{i x \bar{k_x}} [4 sin(x \frac{\delta}{2}) - 2sin(x \delta) ] ##
...
Don't forget the i in the denominator of the sine function.
## sin(x) = \frac{e^{ix}-e^{-ix}}{2i} ## so what you have should be ## 4i\sin(x \frac{\delta}{2})- 2i sin(x \delta)##
From there, it seems like a double angle or half angle formula might be appropriate.

## = \frac{1}{i x} e^{i x \bar{k_x}} [ 2 \delta sinc (\frac{x \delta}{2}) - \delta sinc (x \delta )] ##

Taylor to 2 terms...
## [...] = 2 \delta (1 - \frac{(x \delta)^2}{6} ) - \delta (1 - \frac{(x \delta)^2}{6} ) ##

## = 2 \delta - \frac{x^2 \delta^3}{12} - \delta + \frac{x^2 \delta^3}{6} ##

## = \delta (1 + \frac{x^2 \delta^2}{12} ) ##

## \therefore \frac{1}{2} |\psi |^2 = \frac{\delta^2}{2} (1 + \frac{x^2 \delta^2}{12} ) ^2 ##

I hope this is right so far, please check? When I plot this in Wolfram I get a positive parabola, so no maximum, so I must have done something wrong but can't find it ...
 
Sorry, I was cutting & pasting and didn't notice I had left the ##k_x, i ## in, had it right on paper ...

So I think my solution is correct up to this:
## \psi(x,0) = \frac{1}{x} e^{i x \bar{k_x}} [ 4 sin (\frac{x \delta}{2}) - 2 sin (x \delta)] ##; - The exponent will vanish when I find ## | \psi |^2##

I couldn't simplify this using dbl angle identities, I got for example ## 4 Sinx\delta (1 - Cos x\delta) ## I couldn't use identities like sin A - sin B because of the different coefficients?

Taylor expanding (more carefully) I get ## \psi = e^{i x \bar k_x}.\frac{x^2 \delta^3}{4} ##, but doesn't look right?
 
Why doesn't that look right? What characteristics are you expecting to see? If you aren't seeing them, try to keep more terms in your Taylor expansion.
Looking at the functional form
##\psi(x,0) = e^{ixk_x}\frac{4\sin(x\delta) (1 - \cos(x\delta) ) }{x} ## makes it pretty clear that this function is bounded.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: ognik
If I plot ## x^4 ## I get an upside down parabola, centre 0, instead of being periodic as I would expect - so I suppose that would need a few additional terms in the expansion?

May I assume my solution of ## \psi(x,0) = \frac{1}{x} e^{i x \bar{k_x}} [ 4 sin (\frac{x \delta}{2}) - 2 sin (x \delta)] ## is correct? When I plot the square of this it is periodic, but each cycle is not quite symmetric. The max appears to be close to 27 from the plot, but I can't see how to find this and ## \Delta x ## analytically?
Normally textbook exercises simplify readily, which makes me feel my solution must be wrong somehow? So, I'd appreciate a bit more help - I think once I see how to do this, the rest of the section will follow.
 
Hi - I am effectively self-taught with this forum my only source of interaction and assistance, so would really, really appreciate any and all help making progress please ...
 
The taylor expansion to second order is always a parabola. A taylor expansion to finite order cannot be periodic. Why do you want to use a taylor expansion of anything?

The sum of two sinc functions is right as answer, but I would expect to see them shifted. Do you have the corrected version of your integrals somewhere?
ognik said:
Firstly, ## \Delta k_x = 2 \delta ##
How did you get this?
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: ognik
mfb said:
The taylor expansion to second order is always a parabola. A taylor expansion to finite order cannot be periodic. Why do you want to use a taylor expansion of anything?

The sum of two sinc functions is right as answer, but I would expect to see them shifted. Do you have the corrected version of your integrals somewhere?

I was trying the expansion based on advice from a similar problem, that using sync wouldn't allow an analytic solution - see https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/fourier-analysis-of-wave-packet.855706/

## \psi(x, 0) = -\int^{k_x - \frac{\delta}{2}}_{k_x - \delta} e^{i k_x x} dk_x +\int^{k_x + \frac{\delta}{2}}_{k_x - \frac{\delta}{2}} e^{i k_x x} dk_x -\int^{k_x + \delta}_{k_x + \frac{\delta}{2}} e^{i k_x x} dk_x ##

## = \frac{1}{i x} [ -e^{i x (\bar{k_x} - \frac{\delta}{2})} + e^{i x (\bar{k_x} - \delta)}
+ e^{i x (\bar{k_x} +\frac{\delta}{2})} - e^{i x (\bar{k_x} - \frac{\delta}{2})}
- e^{i x (\bar{k_x} +\delta)} + e^{i x (\bar{k_x} + \frac{\delta}{2})} ] ##

## = \frac{1}{i x} e^{i x \bar{k_x}} [ 2 (e^{i x \frac{\delta}{2}} - e^{-i x \frac{\delta}{2}}) - (e^{i x \delta} - e^{-i x \delta}) ##

## = \frac{1}{x} e^{i x \bar{k_x}} [4 sin(x \frac{\delta}{2}) - 2sin(x \delta) ] ##

## \therefore \psi(x,0) = e^{i x \bar{k_x}} 2 \delta [ sinc (\frac{x \delta}{2}) - sinc (x \delta )] ##

I am stuck here because I want ## \frac{1}{2} | \psi |^2_{max} ## but the max of Sinc anything = 1 so Sinc - Sinc = 0?

mfb said:
Firstly, ## \Delta k_x = 2 \delta ##
How did you get this?
From the function definition, its a square wave from ## \bar{k_x} - \delta## to ## \bar{k_x} + \delta ##
Also the book says it will be the same width as I found in a similar problem - again see https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/fourier-analysis-of-wave-packet.855706/
 
Last edited:
Why do you want to find the maximum amplitude of your wave function, and why do you expect it at zero?
There is a formula for Δx that did not appear in this thread yet. Start with that formula before you calculate things that don't help.

The square wave has a width of 2δ, but that is not Δk. Well, if you don't need the precise prefactors it is okay.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: ognik
  • #10
Have you plotted the function? As you noted, you can't calculate ##\langle x^2 \rangle##, but you can come up with a reasonable estimate for the width by other methods. You don't have to use FWHM.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: ognik
  • #11
mfb said:
Why do you want to find the maximum amplitude of your wave function, and why do you expect it at zero?

I want to find FWHM and thus the values of ##k_x## at 1/2 max of ## |psi|^2 ## - its the method this section of the text seems to be focused on. I don't expect it at 0, but using the Sinc function it workes out to 0 - which I'm sure is wrong, but can't see my mistake.

mfb said:
There is a formula for Δx that did not appear in this thread yet. Start with that formula before you calculate things that don't help.
I don't think I know that formula?

mfb said:
The square wave has a width of 2δ, but that is not Δk. Well, if you don't need the precise prefactors it is okay.
Probably I don't, we're at the start of the book - but if you don't mind I'd like more awareness of how those prefactors would impact this please?
 
  • #12
vela said:
Have you plotted the function? As you noted, you can't calculate ##\langle x^2 \rangle##, but you can come up with a reasonable estimate for the width by other methods. You don't have to use FWHM.
Ah, assumptions :-(, the expression is only 0 at x=0, looks like a capital M ...
For ## \delta = 1 ##, the ##max^2## is ## 2 \times 0.664 ##, but I would need to know this in terms of ## \delta ## to use FWHM.

slightly off-topic to help me get a feel for these things, what would be an approx. range for ## \delta## in this case, for (say) a free electron? An Angstrom maybe?

The book only mentions FWHM, and Taylor expansions don't seem good enough - could you walk me through an appropriate alternative please?
 
  • #13
ognik said:
I don't think I know that formula?
Okay, fine.
Probably I don't, we're at the start of the book - but if you don't mind I'd like more awareness of how those prefactors would impact this please?
Well, your answer can be wrong by something like a factor of 2 if you just take something that looks like a width instead of the mathematical definition of the standard deviation.

ognik said:
For ##\delta = 1## , the ##max^2## is ##2 \times 0.664## , but I would need to know this in terms of ##\delta## to use FWHM.
The maximum scales nicely with δ.
ognik said:
slightly off-topic to help me get a feel for these things, what would be an approx. range for ##\delta## in this case, for (say) a free electron? An Angstrom maybe?
δ is an inverse length. x is the width of the pattern (if you imagine the setup as similar to a slit experiment), probably more of the order of micrometers, so δ is the inverse of that.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
19
Views
3K
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K