Sample Space for Free Particle in the general case

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the interpretation and implications of the wave function for a free particle as described by Schrödinger's Equation. Participants explore the nature of the wave function, its normalizability, and the concept of wave packets in quantum mechanics.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • A beginner expresses confusion about the wave function for a free particle, suggesting it is uniform and asking about its probability density function (pdf) and its definition over certain values of x.
  • Some participants point out that the proposed wave function is not normalizable, indicating that the integral of its modulus square over all space is infinite.
  • There is a suggestion that a free particle should be represented by a wave packet rather than the provided wave function, which corresponds to a particle with a single momentum.
  • One participant mentions that while the given wave function is not a complete solution, it can still be useful in certain applications, such as scattering problems, despite its limitations.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree that the wave function presented is not normalizable and that a wave packet is a more accurate representation of a free particle. However, there is some contention regarding the utility of the original wave function in specific contexts.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights the limitations of the wave function in terms of normalizability and the assumptions underlying its application in quantum mechanics. There is also an acknowledgment of the complexities involved in using wave packets for certain problems.

IronHamster
Messages
28
Reaction score
0
I am a beginner to quantum mechanics and am trying to make sense of Schrödinger's Equation. I am attempting to find probabilities in the case of a free particle in the general case.

It is my understanding that the solution to Schrödinger's Equation in the general case of a free particle is as follows:

\psi(X,T) = e^{i/\hslash ( px - Et)}

The modulus square of this is 1, which means the probability density function is uniform.

Two questions:
1. Over what values of x is this pdf defined? Can we eliminate all values of x > ct?
2. Am I correct to interpret x as the distance from the (known) starting position of the particle at t = 0?

Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Notice that that wave-function is not normalizable. The integral of the modulus square of that wave-function over all space is infinite. A free particle wave function cannot actually be what you gave, but must be a wave-packet.
 
Matterwave said:
Notice that that wave-function is not normalizable. The integral of the modulus square of that wave-function over all space is infinite. A free particle wave function cannot actually be what you gave, but must be a wave-packet.

So are you saying that the solution I mentioned does not describe a free particle wave? I'm not sure how that could be, I have read from multiple sources that it is.

Is there a different approach that needs to be taken to achieve a normalizable function?
 
A real free particle cannot be represented by that function because that function is not normalizable. A real free particle is represented by a wave packet. That function is a function of a particle with exactly 1 momentum (p), but really a particle is represented by a wave packet which has a range of momenta.

You can say that your equation is only a "partial" solution. It hasn't been fixed up yet.

Still, that function is useful for many applications. For example, if we are doing a scattering problem off of a finite square barrier, we tend to just use that function. The central results you obtain by using that function (the transmission and reflection coefficients) is surprisingly good to the results you would get if you made wave packets; however, doing a scattering problem with wave packets is a nightmare.
 
Oh ok that makes sense. Thanks!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K