Position variables in the wave function

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the mathematical and physical definitions of position variables in the wave function, particularly in the context of the Schrödinger equation. The author argues that treating position as independent of time contradicts the implications of the Schrödinger equation. They derive relationships between the Hamiltonian operator (\hat{H}), the momentum operator (\hat{p}), and position, concluding that if position lacks explicit time dependence, the momentum operator's application yields zero, which is inconsistent with physical reality. The discussion highlights the necessity of understanding operator commutation relations and their implications for wave function solutions.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of the Schrödinger equation and its implications in quantum mechanics.
  • Familiarity with operator algebra, specifically commutation relations.
  • Knowledge of wave functions and their role in quantum mechanics.
  • Basic concepts of quantum mechanics, including Hamiltonian and momentum operators.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the implications of operator commutation relations in quantum mechanics.
  • Learn about the separation of variables technique in solving the Schrödinger equation.
  • Explore the concept of time dependence in quantum wave functions.
  • Investigate the role of the Hamiltonian operator in quantum systems.
USEFUL FOR

Quantum physicists, students of quantum mechanics, and anyone interested in the mathematical foundations of wave functions and operator theory.

SheikYerbouti
Messages
18
Reaction score
0
I would like some clarification as to the mathematical and physical definitions of the position variables in the wave function. I often see that it is treated as a variable independent of time; this is utilized in the separation of variables technique. However, the Schrödinger equation implies that this cannot be so. My argument (for the one-dimensional case) is as follows:

We can rearrange the Schrödinger equation to show that (\hat{H}- i\hbar \frac{\partial{}}{\partial{t}})\psi = 0. Since \psi is not identically zero, it follows that we can say that \hat{H} = i\hbar \frac{\partial{}}{\partial{t}} for all solutions to the Schrödinger equation. One consequence of this is that commutation relations between these two operators and a third must produce equivalent results; we will examine commutation with \hat{x}. On one hand, we have:
[\hat{x}, i\hbar \frac{\partial{}}{\partial{t}}]\psi = x i\hbar \frac{\partial{}}{\partial{t}}\psi - i\hbar \frac{\partial{}}{\partial{t}}(x\psi)
= x i\hbar \frac{\partial{}}{\partial{t}}\psi - x i\hbar \frac{\partial{}}{\partial{t}}\psi - \psi i\hbar \frac{\partial{}}{\partial{t}}x
= -\frac{\hbar}{i}\psi \frac{\partial{x}}{\partial{t}}.
On the other hand:
[\hat{x}, \hat{H}]\psi = x(-\frac{\hbar^2}{2m} \frac{\partial^2{}}{\partial{x}^2} + V)\psi - (-\frac{\hbar^2}{2m} \frac{\partial^2{}}{\partial{x}^2} + V)(x\psi)
= -x\frac{\hbar^2}{2m} \frac{\partial^2{\psi}}{\partial{x}^2} + Vx\psi + \frac{\hbar^2}{2m} \frac{\partial^2{(x\psi})}{\partial{x}^2} - Vx\psi = -x\frac{\hbar^2}{2m} \frac{\partial^2{\psi}}{\partial{x}^2} + \frac{\hbar^2}{2m} \frac{\partial^2{(x\psi})}{\partial{x}^2}
= -x\frac{\hbar^2}{2m} \frac{\partial^2{\psi}}{\partial{x}^2} + x\frac{\hbar^2}{2m} \frac{\partial^2{\psi}}{\partial{x}^2} + \frac{\hbar^2}{2m} \frac{\partial{\psi}}{\partial{x}} + \frac{\hbar^2}{2m} \frac{\partial{\psi}}{\partial{x}} = \frac{\hbar^2}{m} \frac{\partial{\psi}}{\partial{x}} = \frac{i\hbar}{m}\hat{p}\psi
From the equality of the operators, we must have:
\frac{i\hbar}{m}\hat{p}\psi = -\frac{\hbar}{i}\psi \frac{\partial{x}}{\partial{t}} \rightarrow \hat{p}\psi\ = m\psi \frac{\partial{x}}{\partial{t}}.

From this, it follows that if the position has no explicit time dependence, then the application of the momentum operator to any wave function must yield zero in all cases. This is clearly inconsistent with reality. This brings me to my questions: Where did I go wrong in the argument? If I did not make a mistake, how is the position variable defined and how are its use with the separation of variables technique and its explicit time dependence reconcileable?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
SheikYerbouti said:
we can say that \hat{H} = i\hbar \frac{\partial{}}{\partial{t}} for all solutions to the Schrödinger equation. One consequence of this is that commutation relations between these two operators and a third must produce equivalent results
No: this is true only if acting with the third operator on a solution of the Schrödinger equation yields another solution of the Schrödinger equation. If it does not, then acting with the third operator takes you out of the space of functions on which \hat{H} = i\hbar \frac{\partial{}}{\partial{t}} is true.

In particular, if ##\psi(x,t)## is a solution of the Schrödinger equation, then in general ##x\,\psi(x,t)## is not.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
859
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
498
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
6K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 56 ·
2
Replies
56
Views
5K