Physically valid wave funtions

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter kini.Amith
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Wave
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the validity of the function sin(x)/(x^2) as a wave function in quantum mechanics. Participants explore the implications of continuity and integrability in relation to Born's conditions and different mathematical frameworks for wave functions.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants argue that the function sin(x)/(x^2) is not a physically valid wave function due to its discontinuity at x=0.
  • Others contend that the primary issue is the function's lack of square integrability, as the integral of its square does not exist because of the singularity at x=0.
  • One participant questions whether continuity is a necessary condition for a wave function to represent a physical system.
  • Another perspective introduces the Lebesgue square integrable view, stating that valid wave functions must be square integrable in the Lebesgue sense, which the given function fails to satisfy.
  • A different approach, the Rigged Hilbert space framework, suggests that while the function is not a physically realizable state, it may still be considered a valid wave function under certain mathematical extensions.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the necessity of continuity and square integrability for a wave function's validity. No consensus is reached regarding the function's status as a valid wave function.

Contextual Notes

Discussions highlight the dependence on definitions of validity in different mathematical frameworks, such as Lebesgue integrability and Rigged Hilbert spaces. The implications of singularities and continuity are also noted as unresolved aspects.

kini.Amith
Messages
83
Reaction score
1
Is the function sinx/(x^2) a physically valid wave function? since Born's conditions state that the function should be continuous and i think this function is discontinuous at x=0.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It's not a representant of a pure quantum state, because its square is not integrable, i.e., the integral
[tex]\int_{\mathbb{R}} \mathrm{d} x |\psi(x)|^2[/tex]
doesn't exist due to the singularity at [itex]x=0[/itex].

That it is not continuous or even analytic is not that important, because you deal with functions in the sense of the Hilbert space of square integrable functions, and it doesn't matter, if they are singular on a set of Lebesgue measure 0.
 
kini.Amith said:
Is the function sinx/(x^2) a physically valid wave function? since Born's conditions state that the function should be continuous and i think this function is discontinuous at x=0.

I don't think this is "a physically valid wave function", not because it's discontinuous, but because it's not square-integrable.
 
SO is continuity of the wave function not a necessary condition for it to represent a physical system?
 
There are a couple of ways of looking at wave functions.

You have the Lebesgue square integrable view - valid wave functions are those that are square integrable in the Lebesque sense - they also form a Hilbert space. This is Von Neumann's approach you will find in his classic Mathematical Foundations of QM text. The wave function you gave is not valid in that approach.

Then there is the Rigged Hilbert space approach. The physically realisable states are considered to be a subset of square integrable functions so as to have nice mathematical properties such as being continuously differentiable, or even simply finite dimensional. Of course your function is not a physically realisable state in that approach either. However for mathematical convenience that space is extended to be the linear functionals defined on the physically realizable states. Note there is slightly more to it in that it must be such that you can define a norm on the resultant space - but these are fine points you can consult tomes on it eg:
http://physics.lamar.edu/rafa/webdis.pdf

In that sense it is a valid wavefunction.

Thanks
Bill
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 61 ·
3
Replies
61
Views
6K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 39 ·
2
Replies
39
Views
4K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K