I Shankar Quantum Mechanics, Chapter 5, Page 160-161

DaddyGriffiths
Messages
2
Reaction score
1
TL;DR Summary
So why is it that he says there is 1 more constraint than free parameters instead of 2?
For the case of general potential V(x), what does it mean when he says that there are always one more constraint than free parameters? At each interval, ψ and ψ' must be continuous, so that is 2 constraints at each interval, and I understand that there are 2 parameters of the wavefunction in each interval between the leftmost and rightmost intervals. Getting rid of the rising exponential term at the extremes (x=±∞) so that the wavefunction doesn't blow up, that leaves us with one parameter at each extreme. So why is it that he says there is 1 more constraint than parameters instead of 2?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hello @DaddyGriffiths ,
:welcome: !​

Can you follow the argument half way on page 160 about finite potential well

A bit of context is also nice, for readers who don't have your book !​
This is about three regions with bounds ##\ -\infty, -L/2, L/2, \infty ## .​
The wave function has an A and a B free parameter in each region.​
Two are required to avoid blowup at ##\ \pm \infty## .​
At ##\ \pm L/2\ ## we require continuity in ##\Psi\ ## and ##\ \Psi'\ ## and that's four constraints.​
So no problem ?​
Not so: there is also the normalization constraint $$\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}\Psi^* \Psi \, dx = 1$$ which determines the over-all scale for all parameters simultaneously.​

Shankar said:
It may seem that there are four free parameters ... The over-all scale of ##\ \Psi\ ## is irrelevant in both the eigenvalue equation and the continuity conditions, these being linear in ##\ \Psi\ ## and ##\ \Psi'\ ##
 
  • Like
Likes DaddyGriffiths and vanhees71
BvU said:
Hello @DaddyGriffiths ,
:welcome: !​

Can you follow the argument half way on page 160 about finite potential well

A bit of context is also nice, for readers who don't have your book !​
This is about three regions with bounds ##\ -\infty, -L/2, L/2, \infty ## .​
The wave function has an A and a B free parameter in each region.​
Two are required to avoid blowup at ##\ \pm \infty## .​
At ##\ \pm L/2\ ## we require continuity in ##\Psi\ ## and ##\ \Psi'\ ## and that's four constraints.​
So no problem ?​
Not so: there is also the normalization constraint $$\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}\Psi^* \Psi \, dx = 1$$ which determines the over-all scale for all parameters simultaneously.​
Thank you! Turns out I forgot the normalization constraint and might've initially misinterpreted the part about the continuity constraints (it is actually 2 at each boundary, not 2 in each interval as I initially thought).
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
Not an expert in QM. AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is quite different from the classical wave equation. The former is an equation for the dynamics of the state of a (quantum?) system, the latter is an equation for the dynamics of a (classical) degree of freedom. As a matter of fact, Schrödinger's equation is first order in time derivatives, while the classical wave equation is second order. But, AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is a wave equation; only its interpretation makes it non-classical...
I am reading WHAT IS A QUANTUM FIELD THEORY?" A First Introduction for Mathematicians. The author states (2.4 Finite versus Continuous Models) that the use of continuity causes the infinities in QFT: 'Mathematicians are trained to think of physical space as R3. But our continuous model of physical space as R3 is of course an idealization, both at the scale of the very large and at the scale of the very small. This idealization has proved to be very powerful, but in the case of Quantum...
Back
Top