Imaginary numbers and the real part of the Schrodinger Equation

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the interpretation and application of the Schrödinger equation, particularly focusing on the role of imaginary numbers in wave functions and their probability densities. Participants explore the structure of time-dependent solutions and the implications of complex numbers in quantum mechanics.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses confusion regarding the time-dependent solution of the wave function, noting discrepancies in the sign of the wave function across different regions.
  • Another participant clarifies that the wave function should be squared using the square modulus, which involves multiplying the wave function by its complex conjugate, suggesting that the imaginary unit cancels out in this process.
  • A third participant reiterates the definition of probability density and provides the expressions for the wave function and its conjugate, emphasizing the role of the imaginary unit in these calculations.
  • A later reply acknowledges the previous explanation and appreciates the clarity provided, indicating a collaborative effort to refine understanding.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the interpretation of the imaginary numbers in the Schrödinger equation, and some confusion remains regarding the application of these concepts in the context of wave functions and probability densities.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved questions regarding the assumptions made in the interpretation of the wave function and the implications of using complex numbers in quantum mechanics. The discussion does not clarify how these assumptions affect the overall understanding of the Schrödinger equation.

Hypatio
Messages
147
Reaction score
1
At the moment I am studying the Schrödinger equation using this resource.

In a 1D solution (sec 3.1 in the paper) they show that a wave function can be expressed as

\Psi(x,t)=\sqrt{2}e^{-iE_{n_x}t}\sin (n_x\pi x)

where n_x is the quantum number. And they show the real part of the solution in Figure 2a for t=0 and for over time in Figure 3a. I do not understand the structure seen in the time-dependent solution. In particular, in my solution I can show exactly what they give in Figure 3 except that I ONLY show the wavefunction being positive at x<0.5 and negative in x>0.5. I can only get all their curves if I assume that the wave function is both positive and negative over time.

I think this might be due to the fact that I do not understand the use of the imaginary number in the equation and solutions. For instance, apparently when the above equation is squared you arrive at

\Psi^2=2\sin^2 (n_x\pi x)

But I don't see how that operates on the exponential. So what is the function of the imaginary number in the Schrödinger equation? Do you just assume that i=1 sometimes and i=-1 othertimes?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You're not just squaring the wave function, you do the square modulus. This means you multiply the wave function by its complex conjugate, here it is
\Psi = \sqrt(2) exp(iEt) sin(n\pi x) [\tex]<br /> When you work it out, the i&#039;s should cancel out.<br /> <br /> i<sup>2</sup>= -1 ALWAYS, from my knowledge at least. Hopefully there is someone with more experience here that may be able to correct me.<br /> <br /> EDIT: My LaTeX text isn&#039;t working, no idea what I&#039;m doing wrong. my apologies
 
Last edited:
The probability density in fig. 2(b) is
P(x,t)=&lt;\overline{\Psi}(x,t)\vert\Psi(x,t)&gt;
where the amplitude and its conjugate are
\Psi(x,t)=e^{-iE_n t}A_{n}\sin(n\pi x) and
\overline{\Psi}(x,t)=e^{+iE_n t}A_{n}\sin(n\pi x)
 
Bob S said:
The probability density in fig. 2(b) is
P(x,t)=&lt;\overline{\Psi}(x,t)\vert\Psi(x,t)&gt;
where the amplitude and its conjugate are
\Psi(x,t)=e^{-iE_n t}A_{n}\sin(n\pi x) and
\overline{\Psi}(x,t)=e^{+iE_n t}A_{n}\sin(n\pi x)

That's what I was trying to say, except this is much nicer. Thanks Bob!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
3K
  • · Replies 39 ·
2
Replies
39
Views
3K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K