KWhat conditions must a wavefunction satisfy for all values of x?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the conditions that a well-behaved wavefunction must satisfy for all values of x in quantum mechanics. Participants explore the mathematical and physical justifications for these conditions, including continuity and differentiability of the wavefunction.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that a well-behaved wavefunction should be continuous and finite everywhere, with a continuous and finite first derivative.
  • There is a suggestion that physical justifications for these conditions may relate to the behavior of the wavefunction at boundaries and its implications for probability distributions.
  • One participant questions the physical rationale behind having a probability density that varies wildly at infinitesimally close points, such as at x = 0 + ε and x = 0 - ε.
  • Another participant notes that a wavefunction that diverges at infinity is not considered acceptable.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the need for continuity and finite derivatives of the wavefunction, but the discussion on physical justifications remains unresolved, with multiple viewpoints expressed.

Contextual Notes

The discussion does not resolve the specific physical justifications for the constraints on wavefunctions, and assumptions about the implications of these properties are not fully explored.

r-dizzel
Messages
10
Reaction score
0
hey all!
does anyone know the conditions a well behaved wavefunction (phi) must satisfy for all x? and any physical justifications for them?

is it something to do with continuity at boundaries? or to do with the differential of the wavefunction?

cheers for any input

roc
 
Physics news on Phys.org
r-dizzel said:
hey all!
does anyone know the conditions a well behaved wavefunction (phi) must satisfy for all x? and any physical justifications for them?

is it something to do with continuity at boundaries? or to do with the differential of the wavefunction?

cheers for any input

roc

In QM a well behaved function is generally a function that is continuous and finite everywhere, and whose first derivative is continuous and finite everywhere also.
 
cheers for the help gents!
 
as far as the physical justification for the constraints, are there any?
 
cristo said:
In QM a well behaved function is generally a function that is continuous and finite everywhere, and whose first derivative is continuous and finite everywhere also.

agreed... well defined,,


anything else?
 
Last edited:
r-dizzel said:
as far as the physical justification for the constraints, are there any?


A wave function blowing up at infinity isn't really a good thing is it?
 
say_physics04 said:
agreed... well defined,,


anything else?

Erm... I'm not sure I know what you're getting at!
 
r-dizzel said:
as far as the physical justification for the constraints, are there any?

The modulus squared of the wave function is a probability distribution. Is there any physical reason to say that at the point x = 0 + \epsilon there's one probability density, and then at x = 0 - \epsilon it's wildly different?

Also, the continuous first derivative rule comes from a similar notion with regards to the momentum. I'll leave it to you to figure that one out.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
994
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
7K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K