MHB Is the Norm of a Quantum State Constant in Schrödinger's Equation?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on the constancy of the norm of a quantum state represented by $$\phi$$ in Schrödinger's equation. It asserts that if $$\phi$$ satisfies the equation, its norm remains constant over time. The conversation also addresses a specific case where a quantum particle's state $$\phi_{t}$$ is defined on the interval [-a,a] with a zero potential, leading to a query about the differential equation governing $$\phi_{t}$$ in terms of partial derivatives. A clarification is sought regarding the notation used for $$\phi_{t}$$, questioning whether it represents the partial derivative of $$\phi$$ with respect to time. The discussion emphasizes the mathematical relationships in quantum mechanics and the implications for state evolution.
Fermat1
Messages
180
Reaction score
0
A tester of basic quantum mechanics:

1) Let the state of a quantum particle be represented by $$\phi$$. Show that if $$\phi$$ satisfies Schrodinger's equation, then its norm is constant.

2) Now consider a quantum particle with state $$\phi_{t}$$ defined on [-a,a] subject to potential V=0.

State the differential equation that $$\phi_{t}$$ solves in terms of partial derivatives of x and t.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Partial solution to #1:

We assume $\phi$ satisfies the Schrodinger equation
$$i \hbar \phi_{t}=(- ( \hbar^{2}/2m) \nabla^{2}+V)\phi. \qquad (1)$$
Since $|\phi|^{2}= \phi^{*} \phi$, we seek to show that
$$ \frac{ \partial}{ \partial t}( \phi^{*} \phi)=0.$$
This is tantamount to showing that
$$ \phi \frac{ \partial \phi^{*}}{ \partial t}+ \phi^{*} \frac{ \partial \phi}{ \partial t}=0.$$
Take the complex conjugation of the Schrodinger equation thus:
$$-i \hbar \phi^{*}_{t}=(- ( \hbar^{2}/2m) \nabla^{2}+V)\phi^{*}. \qquad (2)$$
We have assumed that $V$ is real. Multiply $(1)$ by $\phi^{*}$ and $(2)$ by $-\phi$ to obtain:
\begin{align*}
i \hbar \phi^{*} \phi_{t}&=(- ( \hbar^{2}/2m) \phi^{*} \nabla^{2}+ \phi^{*}V)\phi \\
i \hbar \phi \phi^{*}_{t}&=(( \hbar^{2}/2m) \phi \nabla^{2}- \phi V)\phi^{*}.
\end{align*}
Adding these equations together yields
$$i \hbar (\phi^{*} \phi_{t}+ \phi \phi^{*}_{t})=-( \hbar^{2}/2m) \phi^{*} \nabla^{2} \phi+( \hbar^{2}/2m) \phi \nabla^{2} \phi^{*}
= \frac{ \hbar^{2}}{2m}\left( \phi \nabla^{2} \phi^{*} - \phi^{*} \nabla^{2} \phi \right).$$
We have now reduced the problem down to showing that
$$\phi \nabla^{2} \phi^{*} - \phi^{*} \nabla^{2} \phi=0.$$
Let us examine one of these. I claim that $\phi \nabla^{2} \phi^{*}=- \nabla \phi \cdot \nabla \phi^{*}$; moreover, an analogous line of reasoning will show that $ \phi^{*} \nabla^{2} \phi=- \nabla \phi^{*} \cdot \nabla \phi$. Consider the integral
$$\iiint_{U} \phi^{*} \nabla^{2} \phi \, dV.$$ By Green's First Identity, we know that
$$\iiint_{U} \phi^{*} \nabla^{2} \phi \, dV=- \iiint_{U} \nabla \phi^{*} \cdot \nabla \phi \, dV+ \iint_{ \partial U} \phi^{*}( \nabla \phi \cdot \mathbf{n}) \, dS.$$
This holds for all regions $U$. What I want to say now is that the surface integral has to be zero. However, I'm not sure I can conclude that.

I am at home now; I can post more when I get back to school on Monday.
 
Question on part 2: are you using the notation
$$\phi_{t}= \frac{ \partial \phi}{ \partial t}?$$
 
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Back
Top