Non-Stationary State Wavefunction - Normalized? <L^2>? Uncertainty on L^2?

AI Thread Summary
The nonstationary state wavefunction is confirmed to be properly normalized, as the sum of the squares of the coefficients equals one. The expectation value of L² can be calculated using the orthogonality of the states, resulting in a straightforward evaluation without integration. Specifically, the expectation value <L²> is derived from the individual contributions of the stationary states, which are weighted by their respective probabilities. The uncertainty in L² is not zero, despite L² being zero for non-matching quantum numbers, indicating that further calculations are necessary to determine the uncertainty accurately. Overall, the concepts of normalization, expectation values, and uncertainty in quantum mechanics are clarified through this discussion.
mkosmos2
Messages
5
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Consider the nonstationary state:

\Psi = \sqrt{\frac{1}{3}}\Psi_{22-1} + \sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}\Psi_{110}

Where \Psi_{22-1} and \Psi_{110} are normalized, orthogonal and stationary states of some radial potential. Is \Psi properly normalized? Calculate the expectation value of L^{2} and the uncertainty in L^{2} for a particle in this state.

Homework Equations



|a_{n_{1}l_{1}m_{1}}|^{2} + |a_{n_{2}l_{2}m_{2}}|^{2} = 1 (1)

&lt;L^{2}&gt; = \int_{all{}\Omega}\Psi^{*}(-\hbar^{2}\Lambda^{2})\Psi d\tau (2)

\Delta L^{2} = \sqrt{&lt;(L^{2})^{2}&gt; - &lt;L^{2}&gt;^{2}} (3)

The Attempt at a Solution



For the first part, I think it's safe in this situation to use equation (1) where the a_{nlm} terms are the two coefficients in \Psi, but I'm not sure if it applies when the quantum numbers aren't the same for the two stationary states.

For the second part, still not positive, but I think if I use equation (2), the L^{2} operator results in \hbar^{2}l(l+1) coming outside the integral, and because the two states are orthogonal, the integral and therefore L^{2} goes to 0.

The last part has me tripped up the most because I don't know whether L^{2} being zero automatically means the uncertainty is zero, but something tells me it's not that simple.

I'm just fuzzy on a lot of the concepts surrounding this topic so any clarification/confirmation will be much, much appreciated.

Thank you very much for your time, and if these answers are correct, sorry I wasted it :s

-Mike
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Ok, for the first part, all you need to know is that the states are orthogonal and normalized. This means
\big&lt; \Psi_{n&#039;l&#039;m&#039;} \big\lvert \, \Psi_{nlm} \big&gt; =\big&lt;n&#039;l&#039;m&#039; \big\lvert \,nlm\big&gt; = 0~~ \text{if}~~nlm=n&#039;l&#039;m&#039;;~1~~\text{if}~~nlm \ne n&#039;l&#039;m&#039;
So for your state, we have
\big&lt; \Psi \, \big\lvert \, \Psi \big&gt; =\bigg( \sqrt{ \frac{1}{3}} \Psi_{22-1}^*+ \sqrt{ \frac{2}{3}} \Psi_{110}^* \bigg)\bigg( \sqrt{ \frac{1}{3}} \Psi_{22-1}+ \sqrt{ \frac{2}{3}} \Psi_{110} \bigg)= \frac{1}{3}(1)+ \frac{2}{3}(1) + \frac{2}{6}(0)\frac{2}{6}(0)= \frac{3}{3} =1
So yes, it is normalized.
For the second part,
L^2 \big\lvert \,nlm \big&gt; = \hbar^2 l(l+1) \big\lvert \,nlm \big&gt;
or
\big&lt;n&#039;l&#039;m&#039; \big\lvert L^2 \big\lvert \,nlm \big&gt; = \big&lt;n&#039;l&#039;m&#039;\big\lvert \hbar^2 l(l+1) \big\lvert \,nlm \big&gt; = \hbar^2 l(l+1)~~\text{if}~ l=l&#039;;~~0~~ \text{if} ~~l \ne l&#039;
so,
\begin{multline}\big&lt;L^2 \big&gt; = \frac{1}{3} \big&lt;22-1 \big\lvert \,\hbar^2 2(2+1) \big\lvert 22-1 \big&gt; +\frac{2}{3} \big&lt;110 \big\lvert \,\hbar^2 1(1+1) \big\lvert 110 \big&gt;\\ = \frac{1}{3} \hbar^2 2(2+1) \big&lt;22-1 \big\lvert \ 22-1 \big&gt; +\frac{2}{3} \hbar^2 1(1+1) \big&lt;110 \big\lvert \, 110 \big&gt; = \frac{1}{3} \hbar^2 2(2+1) +\frac{2}{3} \hbar^2 1(1+1) \end{multline}

and etc. You get the idea. By the way, you need to do NO integration on this problem. That's the beauty of orthonormality.
 
Last edited:
Thread 'Help with Time-Independent Perturbation Theory "Good" States Proof'
(Disclaimer: this is not a HW question. I am self-studying, and this felt like the type of question I've seen in this forum. If there is somewhere better for me to share this doubt, please let me know and I'll transfer it right away.) I am currently reviewing Chapter 7 of Introduction to QM by Griffiths. I have been stuck for an hour or so trying to understand the last paragraph of this proof (pls check the attached file). It claims that we can express Ψ_{γ}(0) as a linear combination of...
Back
Top