I Physical Meaning of the Imaginary Part of a Wave Function

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the physical meaning of the imaginary part of the wave function, particularly in the context of wave equations and quantum mechanics. The wave function, expressed as a complex exponential, includes both real and imaginary components, with the real part corresponding to observable plane waves. The inquiry highlights that while the real parts of physical variables often have clear meanings, the significance of the imaginary part remains less understood. It is noted that complex solutions to linear differential equations yield two real solutions, emphasizing the role of both components in fulfilling initial and boundary conditions. Ultimately, the conversation seeks to clarify the relevance of the imaginary part beyond quantum mechanics, suggesting a broader inquiry into its implications in various physical contexts.
deuteron
Messages
64
Reaction score
14
TL;DR Summary
As far as I've encountered, the imaginary part of functions describing physical phenomena have a physical meaning too. What is the physical meaning of the imaginary part of the wave function for the plane wave?
We know the wave function:
$$ \frac {\partial^2\psi}{\partial t^2}=\frac {\partial^2\psi}{\partial x^2}v^2,$$

where the function ##\psi(x,t)=A\ e^{i(kx-\omega t)}## satisfies the wave function and is used to describe plane waves, which can be written as:

$$ \psi(x,t)=A\ [\cos(kx-\omega t)+i\sin(kx-\omega t)]$$

Here, the real part of the equation alone, ##\Re(\psi)=A\cos(kx-\omega t)##, also describes a plane wave, however what is the physical meaning of the imaginary part? I know that in QM, since ##|\psi|## depends on the imaginary part too, it has some physical relevance, but my question is not necessarily limited to quantum mechanics. I have seen other similar questions, but I unfortunately haven't seen a satisfying answer
The motivation behind my question is that so far the complex parts of physical variables I have encountered also have a physical meaning: The complex part of the refraction index corresponds to the absorption, the complex part of the scattering amplitude indicates the existence of inelastic processes; that's why I am curious

If it doesn't have a meaning, why don't we say that ##A\sin(kx-\omega t),\ A\cos(kx-\omega t)## and ##A\exp[i(kx-\omega t)]## all satisfy the wave equation, where we don't know the physical meaning of the exponential one?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
It depends of course on the physics you consider. If your field, ##\psi##, is a real quantity you look of course only for real solutions. Since it's a linear differential equation with real coefficients for any complex solution you get two real solutions by taking ##\mathrm{Re} \psi## and ##\mathrm{Im} \psi##.

As an initial-value problem the solution is uniquely determined by giving initial values ##\psi_0(t=0,x)=f(x)## and ##\partial_t \psi_0(t=0,x)=g(x)##.

Sometimes you have in addition also boundary constraints (e.g., if ##\psi## displacement of a string of length ##L## you have ##\psi(t,0)=\psi(t,L)=0##).

Note that the general solution of the (1+1)d wave equation is given by
$$\psi(t,x)=\psi_1(x-vt) + \psi_2(x+vt)$$
with arbitrary functions ##\psi_1## and ##\psi_2##, i.e., you have enough "freedom" to fulfill the initial and boundary conditions.
 
Thread 'Question about pressure of a liquid'
I am looking at pressure in liquids and I am testing my idea. The vertical tube is 100m, the contraption is filled with water. The vertical tube is very thin(maybe 1mm^2 cross section). The area of the base is ~100m^2. Will he top half be launched in the air if suddenly it cracked?- assuming its light enough. I want to test my idea that if I had a thin long ruber tube that I lifted up, then the pressure at "red lines" will be high and that the $force = pressure * area$ would be massive...
I feel it should be solvable we just need to find a perfect pattern, and there will be a general pattern since the forces acting are based on a single function, so..... you can't actually say it is unsolvable right? Cause imaging 3 bodies actually existed somwhere in this universe then nature isn't gonna wait till we predict it! And yea I have checked in many places that tiny changes cause large changes so it becomes chaos........ but still I just can't accept that it is impossible to solve...
Hello! I am generating electrons from a 3D gaussian source. The electrons all have the same energy, but the direction is isotropic. The electron source is in between 2 plates that act as a capacitor, and one of them acts as a time of flight (tof) detector. I know the voltage on the plates very well, and I want to extract the center of the gaussian distribution (in one direction only), by measuring the tof of many electrons. So the uncertainty on the position is given by the tof uncertainty...
Back
Top