Hi,(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

isn't it a bit dangerous to claim that

[tex]\left[ x \cdot \left( \psi(x,t) \, \frac{\partial \psi^\ast (x,t)}{\partial x} + \psi^\ast(x,t) \, \frac{\partial \psi(x,t)}{\partial x} \right) \right]_{x=-\infty}^{x=\infty} = 0[/tex]

for example?

Expressions like this one are often found in popular quantum mechanics textbooks. How do you justify such expressions? I would prefer a mathematical- instead of a physical explanation...

With best regards

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**

Join Physics Forums Today!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# Justification of a common calculation

Loading...

Similar Threads - Justification common calculation | Date |
---|---|

Justification for no properties before measurement | Jan 5, 2018 |

I Common interaction vacuum for QED + QCD? | Apr 15, 2017 |

I Classical/QM justification of principle of least action | Aug 5, 2016 |

I Justification for introducting "Disentaglers" in MERA | Jun 27, 2016 |

Angular momentum operator justification | Feb 1, 2015 |

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**