Quantum Mechanics: Questions on Stationary Particles & Wave Function

  • Thread starter Thread starter neelakash
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Qm
neelakash
Messages
491
Reaction score
1
I have started my course (a bit earlier than my university---that is why I am reading myself) in Quantum Physics.And I got the following queries to clarify:
Sometimes we need to accept seemingly contradictory features...I want to discuss them and clarify...

(i)Can we conceive a stationary (at rest) particle in QM?If so,do we need to associate a wave-function with it?

What I think:Qm is not worried about this.Even if it is possible,there will be no physically interesting situation...

(ii)In the expression of a(p),which is the Fourier transform of Ψ(x),time t is explicit.Yet, a(p) does not depend on time.

What I think:I do not understand why.

(iii) We know: <x>=∫(Ψ* x Ψ) dx and <p>=(ˉh/i) ∫[Ψ* (∂/∂x) Ψ] dx
where (h/2π)= ˉh


Why is Ψ* in the front place and not the Ψ?What would be the problem if the formula were:

<x>=∫(Ψ x Ψ*) dx and <p>=(ˉh/i) ∫[Ψ (∂/∂x) Ψ*] dx

What I think: I do not understand.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
neelakash said:
(i)Can we conceive a stationary (at rest) particle in QM?If so,do we need to associate a wave-function with it?

What I think:Qm is not worried about this.Even if it is possible,there will be no physically interesting situation...

Stationary, and at rest, do not mean the same in QM.

A wavefunction is stationary in QM if its probability density does not change with time. This is the case for all the eigenstates of a hamiltonian.

Classically, a particle at rest will have a definite position and a definite momentum (p=0), in a given
instant of time. This is not possible in quantum mechanics. And, as quantum mechanics is (so far)
succesful in describing nature, there are no particles strictly at rest in nature.

If you define "at rest", as something having zero momentum, one can have such a particle in QM, and it will be described by a wavefunction, given by a constant Ψ(x)=C, which will have zero momentum, but the position will be completely undetermined.


Have fun with quantum mechanics. Your other questions will be clear once that you follow your QM course.
 
Hi, I had an exam and I completely messed up a problem. Especially one part which was necessary for the rest of the problem. Basically, I have a wormhole metric: $$(ds)^2 = -(dt)^2 + (dr)^2 + (r^2 + b^2)( (d\theta)^2 + sin^2 \theta (d\phi)^2 )$$ Where ##b=1## with an orbit only in the equatorial plane. We also know from the question that the orbit must satisfy this relationship: $$\varepsilon = \frac{1}{2} (\frac{dr}{d\tau})^2 + V_{eff}(r)$$ Ultimately, I was tasked to find the initial...
The value of H equals ## 10^{3}## in natural units, According to : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_units, ## t \sim 10^{-21} sec = 10^{21} Hz ##, and since ## \text{GeV} \sim 10^{24} \text{Hz } ##, ## GeV \sim 10^{24} \times 10^{-21} = 10^3 ## in natural units. So is this conversion correct? Also in the above formula, can I convert H to that natural units , since it’s a constant, while keeping k in Hz ?
Back
Top