Quantum mechanics: Expectation values

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on calculating the expectation value for position, <x>, using the wave function Ψ(x,t) = A · exp(-λ · |x|) · exp(-iωt). Participants clarify that setting t = 0 during normalization is not necessary, as the normalization process is independent of time. The correct approach involves using the complex conjugate of the wave function when calculating <x>, ensuring that time dependence drops out. This highlights the importance of proper normalization techniques in quantum mechanics.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of wave functions in quantum mechanics
  • Familiarity with expectation values and their calculation
  • Knowledge of complex numbers and their conjugates
  • Concept of normalization in quantum systems
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the normalization of wave functions in quantum mechanics
  • Learn about the properties of expectation values in quantum systems
  • Explore the implications of time dependence in wave functions
  • Investigate the role of complex conjugates in quantum calculations
USEFUL FOR

Students and researchers in quantum mechanics, physicists focusing on wave functions, and anyone interested in the mathematical foundations of quantum theory.

Niles
Messages
1,834
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Hi all.

Let's say that i have a wave function
\Psi (x,t) = A \cdot \exp ( - \lambda \cdot \left| x \right|) \cdot \exp ( - i\omega t)

I want to find the expectation value for x. For this I use
\left\langle x \right\rangle = \int_{ - \infty }^\infty x \left| \Psi \right|^2 dx.

Why must I set t = 0 when doing this?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Niles said:

Homework Statement


Hi all.

Let's say that i have a wave function
\Psi (x,t) = A \cdot \exp ( - \lambda \cdot \left| x \right|) \cdot \exp ( - i\omega t)

I want to find the expectation value for x. For this I use
\left\langle x \right\rangle = \int_{ - \infty }^\infty x \left| \Psi \right|^2 dx.

Why must I set t = 0 when doing this?

You don't.

Just leave t arbitrary and you will see that it will drop out by itself.
 
Yes, you are right. But that is when I have normalized the wave function first.

In my book, when he normalizes this function he uses t=0, so A = sqrt(lambda). This way he uses t=0 when finding <x>.

But I can't do both (both use t=t and t=0). So what is more correct?
 
Niles said:
Yes, you are right. But that is when I have normalized the wave function first.

In my book, when he normalizes this function he uses t=0, so A = sqrt(lambda). This way he uses t=0 when finding <x>.

But I can't do both (both use t=t and t=0). So what is more correct?

? The normalization is independent of t. exp(i*w*t) times it's complex conjugate is 1. For all t.
 
Dick said:
? The normalization is independent of t. exp(i*w*t) times it's complex conjugate is 1. For all t.

My mistake. I just squared the whole expression, when I should have multiplied with the conjugate (we are dealing with complex numbers, of course).

Thanks to both of you.
 
Niles said:
My mistake. I just squared the whole expression, when I should have multiplied with the conjugate (we are dealing with complex numbers, of course).

Thanks to both of you.

You are welcome.

By the way, it is a general property of wavefunctions: if you normalize them at any time, they will remain normalized at all times (this assumes that the wavefunction is square integrable, that the potential is real, etc). So one can in principle fix the time to be some value (any value!) before normalizaing but this is never necessary because the time dependence *always* drops out when we normalize.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
677
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
5K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K