I Normalisation Constant In Wavefunction

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the normalization constant A in wavefunctions, specifically in the context of quantum mechanics. It is established that while A can be expressed as A = √(2/L) e^(iθ), the phase factor e^(iθ) is often omitted in textbooks because it is arbitrary and can be set to 1 without affecting physical outcomes. The significance of the phase angle θ is clarified; it holds no physical meaning on its own, but differences between phase angles can have physical implications when combining wavefunctions. The conversation also touches on the methods of deriving the normalization constant, emphasizing that both methods ultimately yield the same results despite differences in approach. Understanding these nuances is crucial for accurate application in quantum mechanics.
laser1
Messages
166
Reaction score
23
TL;DR
normalisation constant
When doing the standard procedure for normalisation a wavefunction, I get $$|A|=\sqrt \frac{2}{L}$$ where A is the normalisation constant. It is mathematically correct to say that $$A=\sqrt \frac{2}{L} e^{i\theta}$$ but would this be a valid answer for the normalisation constant? In my lecture notes and in books, the ##e^{i\theta}## term is not included. I remember reading something about this once online, but I can't find the source. Thank you
 
Physics news on Phys.org
laser1 said:
but would this be a valid answer for the normalisation constant?

Yes.

laser1 said:
In my lecture notes and in books, the eiθ term is not included.

Because it's arbitrary, and can be set to 1. If you're a rebel you can use some other ##\theta\neq 0##. And sometimes people do, if it's convenient.
 
weirdoguy said:
Yes.



Because it's arbitrary, and can be set to 1. If you're a rebel you can use some other ##\theta\neq 0##. And sometimes people do, if it's convenient.
What does the ##\theta## mean, physically? Or does it have no meaning other than mathematical.
 
laser1 said:
What does the ##\theta## mean, physically? Or does it have no meaning other than mathematical.
Phase angles are not physically significant but the difference between two phase angles is.
 
Nugatory said:
Phase angles are not physically significant but the difference between two phase angles is.
I don't follow.
 
laser1 said:
TL;DR Summary: normalisation constant

When doing the standard procedure for normalisation a wavefunction, I get $$|A|=\sqrt \frac{2}{L}$$ where A is the normalisation constant. It is mathematically correct to say that $$A=\sqrt \frac{2}{L} e^{i\theta}$$ but would this be a valid answer for the normalisation constant? In my lecture notes and in books, the ##e^{i\theta}## term is not included. I remember reading something about this once online, but I can't find the source. Thank you
Is this from the infinite potential well? As others have said, yes you can choose any ##e^{i\theta}## but this has no physical consequences (think of the measurement postulate, it depends on the absolute squared value ##|\psi|^2=|e^{i\theta}\psi|^2##).

There is some useful relation that you can prove. When your Hamiltonian is time-reversal symmetric, you can choose the eigenfunctions to be real.
 
laser1 said:
I don't follow.

##\theta## does not mean anything physically. But when you add two wavefunctions with different phase angles the difference of those becomes physically significant since: ##\vert e^{i\theta_1}\psi_1+ e^{i\theta_2}\psi_2\vert^2=\ldots## where dots represent something I wanted to write but I gave up, because I'm on my phone and writing lateX on your phone may kill you 💀 I leave that for you as an exercise. You'll se that there will be a term with difference of phase angles.
 
  • Like
Likes laser1 and Nugatory
pines-demon said:
Is this from the infinite potential well?
Yes.

Take, for example, the below wavefunction. With method 1, I get an extra phase. With method 2, I do not. (In method 2 I admit I forgot the negative root, but even so, that's only 2 values of theta, namely, 0, and pi.) Why does method 2 not yield that e^i term? Also, I realise this is kind of a "homework" question now so I might be in the wrong thread.

1738699854957.png
 
laser1 said:
. With method 2, I do not.

You do if you realise that A is (or may be) complex. So in your integral there should be A*, and that yields |A|^2, and so on. Btw, both of your 'methods' are exactly the same, since |z|^2=zz*. You just wrote out different steps in left and right columns.
 
  • Like
Likes pines-demon and laser1

Similar threads

  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
1K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
977
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K