QM: Does $\frac{d\psi}{dx} \rightarrow 0$ at ±infinity?

  • Thread starter Thread starter quasar987
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Qm
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on whether the derivative of a wave function, \( \frac{d\psi}{dx} \), approaches zero at ±infinity. While a normalizable wave function must satisfy \( \psi \rightarrow 0 \) at ±infinity, this does not necessarily imply that its derivative also approaches zero, as illustrated by a specific counterexample involving a sine-like function. The conversation explores the implications of normalizability on the behavior of both the wave function and its derivative at infinity, suggesting that the derivative's behavior is crucial for calculating expectation values of momentum. Additionally, it is noted that the wave function must decrease faster than any power of \( x \) to ensure meaningful physical interpretations. The discussion concludes with the need for further exploration into the conditions under which the derivative behaves similarly at infinity.
quasar987
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
Messages
4,796
Reaction score
32
Is it always true that

\frac{d\psi}{dx} \rightarrow 0

(at ±infinity)? And if so, why?

I know that for a wave function to be normalizable, we must have psi-->0 at ±infinity but as far as i can see, that does not imply that the derivative will be 0. A counter-exemple of this is a decreasing "sine-like" function with an oscillation frequency inversely proportional to its amplitude. For instance

\psi(x) = A(x)sin(x/A(x))

for x>=0, and

\psi(x) = \psi(-x)

for x<0., with

A(x) = e^{-x}

This function goes to zero at ±infinity but it's derivative is wild at ±infinity.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Is your example even normalizable? Anyway one intuitive way of looking at this is that since infinity isn't really a well defined position i.e. inf+1 is still inf so the derivative must be zero at inf. This is a mathematical abomination though.
 
Thx inha. I'd forgotten that my counter example had to be normalizable to be valid. Maybe there is a way to show that for psi normalizable, the derivative go to zero, thus getting rid of the abomination.

And another question of the same type: what is the reason that psi must go to zero at infinity faster than any power of x?

Is this also true of d\psi/dx? If so, I also ask why.

Thx!
 
The only reason I can think of right now is that Psi has to go to zero faster than any power of x goes to infinity is so that expectation values of x. Since the wave function has no physical meaning by itself, there is the obvious requirement that it be a function such that it is possible to perform on it the operations that result in useful physical information.

The derivatives of Psi must go to zero at infinity to calculate expectation values of momentum. Although the derivatives don't need to go to zero faster than any power of x goes to infinity for <p> calculations, it may still be true.
 
Thread 'Help with Time-Independent Perturbation Theory "Good" States Proof'
(Disclaimer: this is not a HW question. I am self-studying, and this felt like the type of question I've seen in this forum. If there is somewhere better for me to share this doubt, please let me know and I'll transfer it right away.) I am currently reviewing Chapter 7 of Introduction to QM by Griffiths. I have been stuck for an hour or so trying to understand the last paragraph of this proof (pls check the attached file). It claims that we can express Ψ_{γ}(0) as a linear combination of...
Back
Top