B Question about this equation for the expectation value

Click For Summary
The discussion clarifies the notation of expectation values in quantum mechanics, particularly in the context of NMR texts. It explains that the textbook's inclusion of the integral of probability density in the denominator is due to the assumption that the wave function, ψ, is not normalized. In contrast, many quantum mechanics textbooks omit this term, assuming normalization where the integral equals one. The conversation highlights the importance of using the strictly correct formula for clarity. Overall, this exchange emphasizes the nuances of expectation value calculations in quantum mechanics.
docnet
Messages
796
Reaction score
488
TL;DR
please see below
Hi all,

I found this notation of expectation values in a NMR text.

In class, I learned that expectation values are given by
$$<\hat{X}>=\int_{-\infty}^\infty\psi^*x\psi dx$$

why does this textbook divide by the integral of probability density ##\int \psi^*\psi dx##?

Screen Shot 2021-03-16 at 11.06.08 PM.png
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
docnet said:
a NMR text.

Which textbook?

docnet said:
why does this textbook divide by the integral of probability density ##\int \psi^*\psi dx##?

Because it is not assuming that ##\psi## is normalized. The formulas you are used to seeing are based on the assumption that ##\psi## is normalized, which is a typical assumption in QM textbooks; but that just means the integral in the denominator is ##1## so the textbooks often leave it out. A strictly correct formula keeps it in.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71 and docnet
PeterDonis said:
Which textbook?

University of Cambridge published lectures of NMR under Introduction to NMR on this website

Link: http://www-keeler.ch.cam.ac.uk/lectures/

PeterDonis said:
Because it is not assuming that ##\psi## is normalized. The formulas you are used to seeing are based on the assumption that ##\psi## is normalized, which is a typical assumption in QM textbooks; but that just means the integral in the denominator is ##1## so the textbooks often leave it out. A strictly correct formula keeps it in.

Ah, that makes so much sense. Thank you I am truly glad for to have your knowledge as a resource for studying. :bow:

edited for grammar
 
docnet said:
Thank you I am truly glad for to have your knowledge as a resource for studying. :bow:

You're welcome! Glad I could help.
 
We often see discussions about what QM and QFT mean, but hardly anything on just how fundamental they are to much of physics. To rectify that, see the following; https://www.cambridge.org/engage/api-gateway/coe/assets/orp/resource/item/66a6a6005101a2ffa86cdd48/original/a-derivation-of-maxwell-s-equations-from-first-principles.pdf 'Somewhat magically, if one then applies local gauge invariance to the Dirac Lagrangian, a field appears, and from this field it is possible to derive Maxwell’s...