Solving Quantum Mechanics Integral Equation: How to Get from (1) to (2)?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the derivation of an integral equation in quantum mechanics, specifically how to transition from one equation (1) to another (2) involving wave functions and their derivatives. The scope includes mathematical reasoning and conceptual clarification related to quantum mechanics.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the assumption that the limit of the product of the wave function and its derivative approaches zero as x approaches infinity, suggesting that this may not hold for all functions.
  • Another participant notes that proofs in quantum mechanics typically require the wave function to decay faster than certain rates (e.g., 1/x or 1/x²) to ensure the first term in integration by parts is zero.
  • A later reply proposes that the wave function must approach zero to describe the probability of finding a particle, implying that it should decay like e^{-x²} in most physical cases.
  • Another participant discusses the mathematical foundations of quantum theory, emphasizing the necessity for wave functions to be square-integrable and the implications for operators in quantum mechanics.
  • There is mention of specific examples of wave functions and operators, highlighting the conditions under which expectation values are well-defined.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the assumptions regarding the behavior of wave functions at infinity. While some agree on the necessity for certain decay rates, others challenge the validity of these assumptions, indicating that the discussion remains unresolved.

Contextual Notes

The discussion touches on the mathematical subtleties of quantum mechanics, including the properties of square-integrable functions and the implications for operator definitions, which are not fully resolved within the thread.

physics bob
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
The book on quantum mechanics that I was reading says:
d<x>/dt = d/dt ∫-∞ |ψ(x,t)|2 dx
=iħ/2m ∫-∞ x∂/∂x [ψ∂ψ*/∂x+ψ*∂ψ/∂x]dx (1)
=-∫-∞ [ψ∂ψ*/∂x+ψ*∂ψ/∂x]dx (2)
I want to know how to get from (1) to (2)

The book says you use integration by part:
abfdg/dx dx = [fg]ab - ∫abdf/df dg dx
I chose f = x and g = [ψ∂ψ*/∂x+ψ*∂ψ/∂x]
This gave me:
iħ/2m ∫-∞ x∂/∂x [ψ∂ψ*/∂x+ψ*∂ψ/∂x]dx = x[ψ∂ψ*/∂x+ψ*∂ψ/∂x]|-∞ - ∫-∞ [ψ∂ψ*/∂x+ψ*∂ψ/∂x]dx

The book says that the since limx->∞ ψ∂ψ*/∂x = 0, the first term is 0. But I don't think you can make such assumption because firs term is a product of x.
Therefore you should need to show that |dx/dx|=1 < [ψ∂ψ*/∂x+ψ*∂ψ/∂x]/dx as x tend towards infinity.

I've been stuck on this problem for days please help. Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
physics bob said:
The book says that the since limx->∞ ψ∂ψ*/∂x = 0, the first term is 0. But I don't think you can make such assumption because firs term is a product of x.
Therefore you should need to show that |dx/dx|=1 < [ψ∂ψ*/∂x+ψ*∂ψ/∂x]/dx as x tend towards infinity.

It's difficult to follow what you've typed, but in general these proofs in QM require the wavefunction to go to 0 faster than ##1/x## or ##1/x^2## etc.

You're right that the first term in the integration by parts won't be 0 for some functions. So, you need the assumption that ##\psi## tends to 0 quickly enough to kill off that term.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71
PeroK said:
It's difficult to follow what you've typed, but in general these proofs in QM require the wavefunction to go to 0 faster than ##1/x## or ##1/x^2## etc.

You're right that the first term in the integration by parts won't be 0 for some functions. So, you need the assumption that ##\psi## tends to 0 quickly enough to kill off that term.
Thanks for the reply and I'm sorry for the messy question. Is there a reason why we can assume that wave function go to 0 faster than 1/x ? or do we just assume for convenience?
 
physics bob said:
Thanks for the reply and I'm sorry for the messy question. Is there a reason why we can assume that wave function go to 0 faster than 1/x ? or do we just assume for convenience?

I would go with the idea that, since it describes the probability of finding a particle in a certain region, then in most or all physical cases the wave function must eventually go to 0 like ##e^{-x^2}##.

There's a discussion here:

https://physics.stackexchange.com/q...wave-functions-required-to-vanish-at-infinity
 
It's in the very foundations of quantum theory that a pure state in the position representation is described by a square-integrable function in the sense of the Hilbert space of square integrable functions to begin with.

Now, this is only part of the mathematical subtlety, because you also have to deal with the description of the observables by operators that must be self-adjoint, which means that they have to be definable on a dense linear subspace of the Hilbert space, and they also must map the vectors in this dense subspace again to vektors in this space.

Take, e.g., the most simple case of a particle moving in one dimension with the observables position and momentum. These are described by the operators
$$\hat{x} \psi(x)=x \psi(x), \quad \hat{p} \psi(x)=-\mathrm{i} \hbar \partial_x \psi(x).$$
No it's clear that there are a lot of square-integrable functions, for which ##\hat{x} \psi(x)## is not square integrable. E.g., obviously ##\psi(x)=\sin x/x## is square integrable since ##\int_{\mathbb{R}} \mathrm{d} x \sin^2/x^2=\pi## exists, but ##\hat{x} \psi(x)=\sin x## is not square-integrable.

So for the formal rules to evaluate expectation values, the domain of validity for the corresponding operators is restricted to a dense subspace of the Hilbert space, where the operator doesn't lead out of this dense subspace. For position and momentum you can choose the Schwartz space of quickly falling functions, i.e., those square-integrable functions that go to 0 for ##x \rightarrow \pm \infty## faster than any power of ##x##. Then all the expectation values necessary to define the moments of the position distribution are well defined.

For your calculation you must assume that the same ideas hold also for the Hamiltonian, i.e., for the free particle ##\hat{H}=\hat{p}^2/(2m)=-\hbar^2 \partial_x^2/(2m)##. Then the manipulations of your integrals are well defined, leading to the conclusion that the operator describing the velocity, i.e., the time derivative of position, is given by
$$\hat{v}=\mathring{x}=\frac{1}{\mathrm{i} \hbar} [\hat{x},\hat{H}]=\frac{1}{m} \hat{p}.$$
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: dextercioby and PeroK

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
7K