Probability density from Wave Function

Click For Summary
The probability density of finding a particle in space is given by the product of the wave function and its complex conjugate, expressed as |\Psi|^2. This is distinct from simply squaring the wave function, \Psi^2, which does not yield the correct probability density due to the presence of imaginary components. While certain eigenstates of atomic or molecular Hamiltonians can be real, making \Psi^2 valid in those specific cases, the general rule remains that |\Psi|^2 is the correct formulation. The distinction is crucial for accurately interpreting quantum mechanics. Thus, the consensus is that the probability density is represented by |\Psi|^2.
Mandelbroth
Messages
610
Reaction score
24
A friend of mine recently tried to tell me that the square of the wave function for a particle (that is, \Psi^2) gives the probability density of finding a particle in space.

I disagree. I always thought that the wave function multiplied by its complex conjugate (that is, \Psi \Psi^*) yielded the probability density for the particle. They are definitely not the same, because \forall a,b \neq 0, \ (a+bi)^2 = a^2 + 2abi + b^2 \neq a^2 + b^2.

So, is the probability density given by \Psi^2 or \Psi \Psi^* = |\Psi|^2?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Mandelbroth said:
A friend of mine recently tried to tell me that the square of the wave function for a particle (that is, \Psi^2) gives the probability density of finding a particle in space.

I disagree. I always thought that the wave function multiplied by its complex conjugate (that is, \Psi \Psi^*) yielded the probability density for the particle. They are definitely not the same, because \forall a,b \neq 0, \ (a+bi)^2 = a^2 + 2abi + b^2 \neq a^2 + b^2.

So, is the probability density given by \Psi^2 or \Psi \Psi^* = |\Psi|^2?

It's the |\Psi|^2, a real number
 
Perhaps your friend referred to wave function that is eigenstate of some atomic or molecular Hamiltonian. These can be chosen to be real, so then ##\Psi^2## gives the correct density as well as ##|\Psi|^2##. But the latter is the general expression.
 
I am slowly going through the book 'What Is a Quantum Field Theory?' by Michel Talagrand. I came across the following quote: One does not" prove” the basic principles of Quantum Mechanics. The ultimate test for a model is the agreement of its predictions with experiments. Although it may seem trite, it does fit in with my modelling view of QM. The more I think about it, the more I believe it could be saying something quite profound. For example, precisely what is the justification of...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 59 ·
2
Replies
59
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
3K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K