Question about this equation for the expectation value

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the notation of expectation values in quantum mechanics, specifically in the context of nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR). Participants explore the differences in expectation value formulations when the wave function is not normalized.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the necessity of dividing by the integral of probability density in the expectation value formula.
  • Another participant explains that the textbook's approach does not assume the wave function is normalized, contrasting it with typical quantum mechanics textbooks that often assume normalization.
  • A participant expresses appreciation for the clarification provided regarding the expectation value notation.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the reasoning behind the textbook's notation, but there is no explicit consensus on the broader implications or preferences for different formulations.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights the assumption of normalization in quantum mechanics and its impact on the formulation of expectation values, but does not resolve the implications of using non-normalized wave functions.

docnet
Messages
796
Reaction score
486
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   Reactions: 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.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K