How Does Griffith Prove Psi Stays Normalized in Equation [1.25]?

nymphidius
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
I'm having trouble understanding what David Griffith did in equation [1.25]. In this section he's trying to prove that psi stays normalized and I'm following him from [1.21] to [1.25] and where I'm getting stuck is understanding how:

∂/∂t|ψ|^2= i\hbar/2m(ψ*∂²/∂x²[ψ]-∂²/∂x²[ψ*]ψ) [1.25]

He makes this equal to yet another confusing equation, but I think if just understood what substitution he made then I'd be able to progress. (This is independent study so I have no university professor to ask).

Also, I'm assuming someone has the book to look at what the confusion is. If someone wants to help but doesn't have the book, I'm willing to write out steps 1.21 to 1.25.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Consider these things equal for the time being
<br /> i\hbar \frac{\partial}{\partial t}=\hat{H}=-\frac{\hbar^2}{2m}\nabla^2<br />
Then apply this to |\Psi |^2 and don't forget the product rule.
 
Last edited:
Thanks a million man. I understand it now.
 
okay so I get that part, but in the same line (within 1.25) he writes:

iℏ/2m(ψ*∂²/∂x²[ψ]-∂²/∂x²[ψ*]ψ) = iℏ/2m(∂/∂x)(ψ*∂/∂x[ψ]-∂/∂x[ψ*]ψ) [1.25]

how did he factor out the partial derivative with respect to x on the RHS? To my knowledge, if you apply the partial derivative on the RHS then I WOULDN'T get the LHS of 1.25.

(to my understanding ψ=ψ(x,t))
 
try it out again. Watch the negative signs, and make sure to do the product rule when you differentiate, they are equal.
 
I read Hanbury Brown and Twiss's experiment is using one beam but split into two to test their correlation. It said the traditional correlation test were using two beams........ This confused me, sorry. All the correlation tests I learnt such as Stern-Gerlash are using one beam? (Sorry if I am wrong) I was also told traditional interferometers are concerning about amplitude but Hanbury Brown and Twiss were concerning about intensity? Isn't the square of amplitude is the intensity? Please...
I am not sure if this belongs in the biology section, but it appears more of a quantum physics question. Mike Wiest, Associate Professor of Neuroscience at Wellesley College in the US. In 2024 he published the results of an experiment on anaesthesia which purported to point to a role of quantum processes in consciousness; here is a popular exposition: https://neurosciencenews.com/quantum-process-consciousness-27624/ As my expertise in neuroscience doesn't reach up to an ant's ear...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
Back
Top