I How to identify admissible functions in QM by simple math?

SemM
Gold Member
Messages
194
Reaction score
13
Hi, in QM literature the inadmissible solutions to the Schrödinger eqn are often , if not always, quoted in the text as "inadmissible", because they are discontinuous, not-single valued, not square integrable and not infinitely differentiable. However in a discussion with Dr Du yesterday, various functions resulted as inadmissible, such as x, ##x^2## which the author later realized the reason for (not being infinity differentiable).

However ,as the discussion continued, the next suggestions, ##e^{−x}## and ##e^{−3x}## were easily identified by Dr Du to also be inadmissible. At first, and even second glance, I cannot see why these are inadmissible, because they are infinitely differentiable , they appear as being indeed single valued, however they are perhaps not square integrable.

In a textbook, the criteria say

"(...) where the domain ##\mathscr{D}(D) \subset L^2(-\infty, +\infty)## consists of all functions ##\psi \in L^2(-\infty, +\infty)## which are absolutely continuous on every compact interval on R, and such that ##D\psi \in L^2(-\infty,+\infty).##"

Here again, the functions are absolutely continuous in an infinite interval. But I wonder, how can one verify that without using mathematical software?

How can one "train" or which immediate features can one spot in a function to see rapidly, as Dr Du did, that a function does not satisfy the 4 criteria of QM?

As an example, any function including tan(x) would be assumed discontinuous, and any function without "i" in it, can be assumed to be not-square integrable. But what about functions that are more complex than so, how can one find if they are accepted as solutions to the Schrödinger eqn without excessive use of software?

Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
SemM said:
...and any function without "i" in it, can be assumed to be not-square integrable.
Thanks

##e^{-x^2}## is square-integrable. In the QM context the 'square' is ##\psi^{*}\psi## which is not complex.
 
Mentz114 said:
##e^{-x^2}## is square-integrable. In the QM context the 'square' is ##\psi^{*}\psi## which is not complex.

What is the hermitian counter part of ##e^{-x^2}##? In any case, I was looking for a way to see how a function fits in the criteria of QM without extensive analysis.

Thanks
 
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
If we release an electron around a positively charged sphere, the initial state of electron is a linear combination of Hydrogen-like states. According to quantum mechanics, evolution of time would not change this initial state because the potential is time independent. However, classically we expect the electron to collide with the sphere. So, it seems that the quantum and classics predict different behaviours!
Back
Top