Multiplying wavefunction with complexnumber.

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter olgerm
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    wavefunction
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the implications of multiplying a wavefunction by a complex number of unit modulus, specifically whether this operation preserves the physical meaning of the wavefunction in quantum mechanics. The scope includes theoretical considerations related to the Schrödinger equation and the characterization of quantum states.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that multiplying a wavefunction by a complex number of unit modulus results in a wavefunction that represents the same physical state, as indicated by the invariance of the probability density ##|\Psi|^2##.
  • Others question whether the modified wavefunction ##e^{i\phi}\Psi## satisfies the Schrödinger equation with the same potential energy function as the original wavefunction ##\Psi##.
  • One participant asserts that the Schrödinger equation is linear in complex numbers, suggesting that the phase factor does not affect the physical state represented by the wavefunction.
  • Another participant discusses the nature of quantum states as positive operators of unit trace, emphasizing the invariance to phase and referencing the Born Rule and its implications for mixed states.
  • Some participants mention historical attempts to explore deviations from linearity in the Schrödinger equation but note that these efforts were largely abandoned due to disagreements on experimental implications.
  • A later reply introduces the idea that any wavefunction could be described by a single real-valued function with multiple arguments, suggesting a different perspective on wavefunction representation.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on whether the multiplication of a wavefunction by a complex number of unit modulus preserves its physical meaning, particularly in relation to the Schrödinger equation. The discussion remains unresolved with multiple competing perspectives.

Contextual Notes

Some assumptions about the nature of wavefunctions and the implications of linearity in quantum mechanics are not fully explored, and there are unresolved questions regarding the conditions under which the discussed properties hold.

olgerm
Gold Member
Messages
543
Reaction score
40
Is it true that by multiplying wavefunction with arbitrary complexnumber, which module is 1, results another wavefunction, that has same physical meaning? aka ##\forall_\phi(\Psi\ has\ the\ same\ meaning\ as\ \Psi \cdot e^{i \cdot \phi})##
If not please give me an example of wavefunction and ##\phi## where it does not.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
##\Psi## and ##e^{i\phi}\Psi## represent the same state since ##|\Psi|^2## is the central quantity that characterizes the state.
 
Metmann said:
##\Psi## and ##e^{i\phi}\Psi## represent the same state since ##|\Psi|^2## is the central quantity that characterizes the state.
Yes, but does ##e^{i\phi}\Psi## satisfy Schrödinger equation with same potentialenergy function ##U(t;\vec X)## as ##\Psi##?
 
olgerm said:
Yes, but does ##e^{i\phi}\Psi## satisfy Schrödinger equation with same potentialenergy function ##U(t;\vec X)## as ##\Psi##?

Sure. The Schrödinger equation is ##\mathbb{C}##-linear on both sides, hence the phase drops out. In fact all quantum mechanics is ##\mathbb{C}##-linear, hence the physical space of states is the projective Hilbert space.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71 and olgerm
Yea - all true.

Why - because states are not really members of a Hilbert space - they are really positive operators of unit trace. Such operators of the form |u><u| are called pure and can be mapped to the underlying space the operator is defined on by simply using the u - but note if you multiply |u> by a complex number of unit length to get |u'> |u><u| = |u'><u'| - that's why it is invariant to phase. In general any positive operator of unit trace can be put in the form (not necessarily uniquely BTW which has implications for the decoherence program in explaining the measurement problem I will not go into here - start another thread if interested) as U=∑pi |ui><ui| where pi are positive and sum to 1. These are called mixed states. The Born Rule then becomes the expected value of an observable O, E(O), is E(O) = trace (OU) where U is the systems state and show the pi in fact are the probability of Iui><ui| in the mixture.

In fact due to a very famous theorem by the mathematician Gleason it can be deduced from more fundamental assumptions - see post 137:
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/the-born-rule-in-many-worlds.763139/page-7

Thanks
Bill
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71
olgerm said:
Yes, but does ##e^{i\phi}\Psi## satisfy Schrödinger equation with same potentialenergy function ##U(t;\vec X)## as ##\Psi##?
Why don't you try it yourself? Write down the Schrödinger equation for ##\Psi##, make the substitution ##\Psi \rightarrow ^{i\phi}\Psi##, and see if anything changes.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71, Metmann and Vanadium 50
Metmann said:
Sure. The Schrödinger equation is ##\mathbb{C}##-linear on both sides, hence the phase drops out. In fact all quantum mechanics is ##\mathbb{C}##-linear, hence the physical space of states is the projective Hilbert space.

Yes. I think there have been some efforts in the 90s to find deviations where you have a term in the Schrödinger equation that acts on the wave function squared, but they were essentially abandoned because people could not really agree on what would happen then and how it could be seen experimentally. The linearity is really extremely fundamental to our understanding of QM.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Metmann
By degrees of freedom, any wavefunction should be unambiguously descriptive by one real-valued function , that has 4 arguments.
##f(t,\vec X)##
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
4K