Justification of a common calculation

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter saunderson
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Calculation
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the justification of the expression [ x \cdot ( \psi(x,t) \, \frac{\partial \psi^\ast (x,t)}{\partial x} + \psi^\ast(x,t) \, \frac{\partial \psi(x,t)}{\partial x) ]_{x=-\infty}^{x=\infty} = 0 in quantum mechanics (QM). It is established that the wavefunction must be square integrable, meaning \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} |\psi(x)|^2\,dx exists and is finite. The discussion references Schwabl's rigorous treatment of QM, noting that if the wavefunction's long-range behavior is 1/|x|^{\alpha} for \alpha > 1, the boundary terms vanish as |x| \rightarrow \infty. Additionally, it emphasizes the importance of defining a subspace of the Hilbert space for valid wavefunctions.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of quantum mechanics principles
  • Familiarity with wavefunctions and their properties
  • Knowledge of Hilbert space concepts
  • Basic calculus, particularly integration techniques
NEXT STEPS
  • Study Schwabl's "Quantum Mechanics" for rigorous treatments of wavefunctions
  • Learn about square integrability in the context of quantum mechanics
  • Explore the implications of boundary conditions in quantum systems
  • Review D.V. Widder's "Advanced Calculus" for deeper insights into mathematical rigor
USEFUL FOR

Students and professionals in quantum mechanics, physicists focusing on mathematical foundations, and anyone interested in the rigorous justification of quantum expressions.

saunderson
Messages
62
Reaction score
1
Hi,

isn't it a bit dangerous to claim that

\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​


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 news on Phys.org
Very good question. I spent several days trying to figure it out when I first began learning QM (and haven't stopped since!). Here is my take on it.

It is implicitly assumed here that the wavefunction is square integrable meaning

\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} |\psi(x)|^2\,dx

exists and is finite. Books usually do not go further than this, but state conditions of "well behaviour" (but see * below). More rigorous books on QM will tell you that if the long-range behavior of the wavefunction is of the form 1/|x|^{\alpha} for \alpha > 1, then this condition is (usually) satisfied. [c.f. Schwabl, for instance.]

So in your expression, as |x| \rightarrow \infty, the terms involving the product of the wavefunction and its derivative will go to zero faster than x tends to infinity, and hence 'overall' the expression will go to zero at |x| = \infty.

If you want to be more rigorous, you can define a subspace of the Hilbert space and regard only square integrable functions or functions satisfying some regularity conditions, as valid wavefunctions. That way, all such boundary terms automatically vanish.

* - Square integrability does not guarantee that the wavefunction goes to zero at infinity. For an explanation, see D.V. Widder, "Advanced Calculus" 2nd ed., Dover, New York, 1998, p. 325.
 
Thank you for your fast and detailed answer! That supports my assumption that several authors leave the reader deliberatly (or not) behind some serious issues :rolleyes:

Now my thoughts about this are about to come to maturity...

Any other suggestions are appreciated as well =)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
6K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K