Normalization and the probability amplitude

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the normalization of probability amplitude wavefunctions in both position space and wavenumber space. Participants explore the implications of normalizing these wavefunctions and the relationship between their probability densities, particularly in the context of Fourier transforms and Gaussian functions.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions whether both probability densities can be normalized simultaneously, suggesting that one must choose to normalize in either position or wavenumber space.
  • Another participant asserts that the norm of a wavefunction remains the same regardless of whether it is normalized in position space or momentum (wavenumber) space.
  • A participant provides a specific example using a normalized Gaussian probability density and raises a concern about the normalization of its Fourier transform.
  • Another participant clarifies that the Fourier transform should be applied to the wavefunction itself, not its square, and provides a detailed calculation to show that the probability density in wavenumber space can also be normalized.
  • One participant speculates that their definition of "wave number" might differ from the conventional definition, which could affect their normalization results.
  • A later reply acknowledges a potential mistake in the Fourier transform formulation, indicating that the normalization still holds despite the initial confusion.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the normalization of wavefunctions in position and wavenumber spaces, with some asserting that both can be normalized while others question this. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the implications of different definitions of wave number and their effects on normalization.

Contextual Notes

Participants discuss the normalization of Gaussian functions and their Fourier transforms, highlighting potential misunderstandings in the application of Fourier transforms and the definitions of wave numbers. There are unresolved mathematical steps and assumptions regarding the normalization process.

redtree
Messages
335
Reaction score
15
Given two probability amplitude wavefunctions, one in position space ##\psi(r,k)## and one in wavenumber space ##\phi(r,k)##, where ##r## and ##k## are Fourier conjugates, how is it possible for the modulus squared, i.e., probability density, of BOTH wavefunctions to be normalized? It seems that only one of the two probability densities can be normalized, and one must choose to normalize in either position OR wavenumber space. Is my understanding correct?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
redtree said:
Given two probability amplitude wavefunctions, one in position space ##\psi(r,k)## and one in wavenumber space ##\phi(r,k)##, where ##r## and ##k## are Fourier conjugates, how is it possible for the modulus squared, i.e., probability density, of BOTH wavefunctions to be normalized? It seems that only one of the two probability densities can be normalized, and one must choose to normalize in either position OR wavenumber space. Is my understanding correct?

On the contrary, the norm of a wavefunction is the same whether you normalize in position space or momentum (wavenumber) space.

I don't know what you mean by ##\psi(r,k)##. Let's simplify to one spatial dimension, so a wave function is just a function ##\psi(x)## in position space. Then the corresponding representation in momentum space, ##\tilde{\psi}(k)## is defined by:

##\tilde{\psi}(k) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}} \int e^{-ikx} \psi(x) dx##. Then the norms are the same:

##\int (\psi(x))^* \psi(x) dx = \int (\tilde{\psi}(k))^* \tilde{\psi}(k) dk##
 
Assume the probability density is the normalized Gaussian, such that:
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\left|\phi(x) \right|^2&=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2 \pi \sigma^2}} e^{-\frac{x^2}{2 \sigma^2}}
\end{split}
\end{equation}

Thus:
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} dx\frac{1}{\sqrt{2 \pi \sigma^2}} e^{-\frac{x^2}{2 \sigma^2}}&=1
\end{split}
\end{equation}Where:
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\mathcal{F}\left[\frac{1}{\sqrt{2 \pi \sigma^2}} e^{-\frac{x^2}{2 \sigma^2}}\right]&=e^{-2 \pi^2 \sigma^2 k^2}
\end{split}
\end{equation}

However:
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} dk
e^{-2 \pi^2 \sigma^2 k^2}&=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2 \pi \sigma^2}}
\\
&\text{i.e., } <>1
\end{split}
\end{equation}

So what am I missing?
 
You don't take the Fourier transform of the square of the function, you take the Fourier transform of the function, and then square it.

So your function is ##\phi(x) = (2\pi \sigma^2)^{-\frac{1}{4}} e^{-\frac{x^2}{4\sigma^2}}##

Then ##\tilde{\phi}(k) = (2\pi \sigma^2)^{-\frac{1}{4}} (2\pi)^{-\frac{1}{2}} \int e^{-\frac{x^2}{4\sigma^2} } e^{-ikx} dx = (2\pi)^{-\frac{3}{4}} (\sigma)^{-\frac{1}{2}} \int e^{-\frac{x^2}{4\sigma^2} } e^{-ikx} dx##

To do the integral, let ##x = 2\sigma y + i \sigma k##. Then ##e^{-\frac{x^2}{4\sigma^2} } e^{-ikx} = e^{-(y+ik \sigma)^2 - \sigma^2 k^2}##

So ##(2\pi)^{-\frac{3}{4}} (\sigma)^{-\frac{1}{2}} \int e^{-\frac{x^2}{4\sigma^2} } e^{-ikx} dx = (2\pi)^{-\frac{3}{4}} (\sigma)^{-\frac{1}{2}} 2 \sigma e^{-\sigma^2 k^2} \sqrt{\pi}##

So

##\tilde{\phi}(k) = (\frac{2\sigma^2}{\pi})^{\frac{1}{4}} e^{-\sigma^2 k^2}##

Square it to get the probability density:

##|\tilde{\phi}(k)|^2 = (\frac{2\sigma^2}{\pi})^{\frac{1}{2}} e^{-2\sigma^2 k^2}##

You'll find that ##\int |\tilde{\phi}(k)|^2 dk = 1##.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: PeroK
stevendaryl said:
##|\tilde{\phi}(k)|^2 = (\frac{2\sigma^2}{\pi})^{\frac{1}{2}} e^{-2\sigma^2 k^2}##

It occurs to me that "wave number" might not be the same thing as my ##k##. It might be defined so that ##k \equiv 2\pi k'## where ##k'## is the wave number. If that's the case, then the density as a function of ##k'## must be adjusted.
 
Got it; I figured I was making a simple mistake. I use ##e^{-2 \pi i k x}## instead of ##e^{-i k x}## for the Fourier transform so my answer a little different but normalizes just the same. Thanks!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K