Question regarding sudden approximation

  • Thread starter Thread starter azztech77
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Approximation
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the sudden approximation for a particle in an infinite square well and the implications of rapidly decreasing the well's width. It questions whether this action constitutes a "measurement" of the particle's position and when the wavefunction collapse occurs, particularly in relation to a delta function potential. Participants clarify that while the formalism suggests a wavefunction could collapse to a delta function, this contradicts Born's rule, as a delta function is a distribution rather than a proper function. Instead, wavefunctions can localize into small wave packets, but practical measurements at atomic scales remain challenging due to the rapid oscillation of wavefunctions. The conversation emphasizes that while the concept of position exists, exact measurements are limited by the nature of quantum mechanics.
azztech77
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Hey everyone - just a bit of a conceptual question regarding the sudden approximation for a particle in an infinite square well. In theory, if we were to suddenly decrease the width of the potential from say L, to L' << L, in a very quick period of time - wouldn't this in some sense constitute a "measurement" of the particle's position in that you would now have a very good idea of where it was (especially if L' is very small) - at what point does the "collapse" of the wavefunction occur? would it be at the point at which the well length L was infinitely small (ie, a delta function potential?). When does collapsing of the wavefunction occur - what I don't understand is that since any measurement of position in the lab has some level of error (We can never pinpoint the particle's position exactly) how could a wavefunction ever truly "collapse" to a delta function? I imagine it doesn't and if anything this is as usual just an approximation of reality.

Many thanks for help clearing up the confusion.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
how could a wavefunction ever truly "collapse" to a delta function? I imagine it doesn't and if anything this is as usual just an approximation of reality.

Although the formalism leads one to think so, the idea that the wave function can collapse to a delta function is not consistent with the rest of the theory, namely Born's rule. The reason is that delta function is not a function, but a distribution which does not follow Born's rule that |psi|^2 is density of probability.

Instead of delta function, wave function can be thought to (due to special interaction) localize into a small wave packet with limited extension. In practice wave functions have spatial extension of orders of Bohr radius, 10^{-10}~m, or bit smaller for nuclei, but there is no experiment currently known that could find position of the electron exactly.

Your example is correct, and would work for a macroscopic well, say 1mm long; after shrinking the well rapidly, the particle will be still inside (if it is infinite) and the wave function will be altered correspondingly; this can be calculated from Schrödinger equation in principle.

However, at the level of atomic distances, such measurement is too hard to perform in practice; to decrease the length of the well rapidly would mean faster than the natural oscillation of the wave function, but this is of order 10^{-15}~s, or period of visible light and this is too fast for manipulating some borders of the potential well. The atom is already very short potential well; shrinking it further is hard.

Please do not take this as argument that the electron does not have a position; that is a very different question.
 
Time reversal invariant Hamiltonians must satisfy ##[H,\Theta]=0## where ##\Theta## is time reversal operator. However, in some texts (for example see Many-body Quantum Theory in Condensed Matter Physics an introduction, HENRIK BRUUS and KARSTEN FLENSBERG, Corrected version: 14 January 2016, section 7.1.4) the time reversal invariant condition is introduced as ##H=H^*##. How these two conditions are identical?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
4K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 42 ·
2
Replies
42
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K