Solving a Math Mystery: Wave Functions & Probability Density

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Unkraut
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Stupid
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the interpretation of wave functions and probability densities in quantum mechanics, particularly focusing on the dimensional analysis of these concepts. Participants explore the implications of integrating wave functions and their probability densities over a given interval.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses confusion regarding the dimensionality of the integral of the probability density, questioning why it does not yield a length.
  • Another participant asserts that integrating the probability density with respect to length results in a quantity with dimensions of scalar times length.
  • A different participant challenges the original claim, stating that the integral of the probability density over a finite interval does not equal 1, but rather the length of the interval.
  • Further clarification is provided by the same participant, who acknowledges that the example wave function used is not a valid physical wave function and that a proper wave function should have dimensions of sqrt(length).

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the interpretation of the integral of the probability density, with multiple competing views presented regarding its dimensionality and the validity of the example wave function.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved assumptions regarding the nature of wave functions and the conditions under which their integrals yield specific results. The discussion also highlights the importance of using valid physical wave functions in such analyses.

Unkraut
Messages
30
Reaction score
1
Hello!
I study mathematics and am in my sixth year, but...
I have a very elementary question:

I stumbled upon it while learning for quantum mechanics. But it's nothing new, it's happening to me all the time: I get confused by things like this!

Observe the following facts:
Suppose we deal with the space of wave functions over the real line.
The wave function \psi(x) is a complex scalar. Take for example \psi(x)=e^{ikx} (not normalizable, don't need it)
The derivative \psi'(x)=ike^{ikx} has 1/length as it's unit.
Integrating that over some interval yields a scalar. \psi(b)-\psi(a)
The probability density \psi*(x)\psi(x) is a scalar.
Integrating this over the real line (length) gives 1. A scalar...
Shouldn't such an operation yield a length? Am I stupid?

I am not joking. For me this is a mystery.

Thanks for your answers.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
When you integrate the probability density (scalar) with respect to length, the answer will have the same dimension (scalar x length).
 
I can't get what you want to calculate and it seems for me that it hardly makes sense, but obvious mistake you did is that \int_a^b\psi^{*}(x)\psi(x) dx is not equal 1, but b-a
 
xts said:
I can't get what you want to calculate and it seems for me that it hardly makes sense, but obvious mistake you did is that \int_b^a\psi^{*}(x)\psi(x) dx is not equal 1, but b-a

Sorry, I was talking about integrating over the whole (1-dimensional) space here (which has the physical dimension of length). And the total probability (of an physical wave function, not the example I used) should be 1.
But I see that my example e^ikx is not an example for a real wave function. And an actual wave function (in 1-space) actually has dimension sqrt(length), as for example the Gaussian wave packet:

\psi(x)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\sqrt{2\pi}\sigma}} with sigma being a length.

So my question was useless and came from wrong presumptions.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K