Stationary States and time-independent states (aren't they the same?)

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concepts of stationary states and time-independent states in quantum mechanics, particularly in relation to the time-independent Schrödinger equation. Participants explore the definitions, implications, and distinctions between these concepts, as well as their mathematical representations.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests that if a function is time-independent, it should describe a stationary state, questioning whether this assumption is correct.
  • Another participant counters that not all time-independent functions satisfy the time-independent Schrödinger equation, implying that the question may require identifying specific solutions.
  • A participant explains that a stationary state is an eigenstate of the Hamiltonian, providing an example of a hydrogen atom state and discussing the trivial time-dependence of such states.
  • There is a discussion about deriving solutions from the time-independent Schrödinger equation and how these solutions can evolve over time using a specific expression.
  • Participants express uncertainty about the definition of a time-independent state, with one suggesting it might refer to states that do not change with time, while another mentions the condition of having an eigenvalue E=0.
  • Concerns are raised about linear superpositions of stationary states, with one participant noting that such superpositions are not stationary unless the states involved are degenerate.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the definitions and implications of stationary and time-independent states, with no consensus reached on whether all time-independent functions can be considered stationary states. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the nuances of these concepts.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the potential for confusion regarding the definitions of time-independent states and the conditions under which linear superpositions remain stationary. There are also references to specific mathematical expressions and eigenvalue conditions that may require further clarification.

MrMultiMedia
Messages
9
Reaction score
0
I always thought they were the same, but now I am reading a question that says "which of he following time-independent functions describe stationary states of the corresponding quantum systems?"

Is there something I am missing? It's written like there is something to solve, but to me it seems like a trick question and all I really have to write is "if they are all time independent functions, then they all describe stationary states." Would this be a correct assumption?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Not all time-independent functions satisfy the time-independent Schrödinger equation. Probably the question wants you to say which of the functions are actually solutions to the time-independent Schrödinger equation.
 
The time-dep. Schrödinger eq. reads

[tex]i\partial_t\,|\psi,t\rangle = \hat{H}\,|\psi,t\rangle[/tex]

a stationary state is an eigenstate of the Hamiltonian, i.e.

[tex]\hat{H}\,|\psi,t\rangle = E_\psi\,|\psi,t\rangle[/tex]

An example would be a state in an hydrogen atom labelled by nlm

[tex]|\psi,t\rangle = |nlm,t\rangle[/tex]

Note that this state is not time-independent.

But the time dependency is "trivial" as can be seen by the usual ansatz

[tex]|\psi,t\rangle = e^{-iEt}|\psi,0\rangle[/tex]

which solves the time-dep. Schrödinger eq. provided that we use an (time-indep.) eigenstate

[tex]|\psi,0\rangle[/tex]

of the Hamiltonian. This state is time-independent, but it is not a solution of the time-dependent Schrödinger eq. but of the time-independent Schrödinger eq.

In which sense is

[tex]|\psi,t\rangle = e^{-iEt}|\psi,0\rangle[/tex]

time-dependent but "stationary"?

The state defines a one-dim. subspace of the Hilbert space, and the time-evolution does not leave this subspace; the time-evolution is described by a "trivial phase factor" e-iEt therefore the time-dependency does not change the "direction" of the state vector. In that sense the direction is stationary.
 
So, if I understand it correctly, if we have time-indep potential we can use time-indep Schrödinger equation(=eigenvalue problem for Hamiltonian) to derive set of solutions for t=0, from which any other state can be formed(=they form orthonormal basis) and which can be developed into any later time by expression

[tex]|\psi,t\rangle = e^{-iEt}|\psi,0\rangle[/tex]

Correct?


What is time-indep state anyway? I guess it could be state which does not change with time, but it would be probably rare case.

I've found "www.mit.edu/~tokmakof/.../1._Introduction_3-15-10.pdf" useful link on the topic.



tom.stoer said:
In which sense is

[tex]|\psi,t\rangle = e^{-iEt}|\psi,0\rangle[/tex]

time-dependent but "stationary"?

The state defines a one-dim. subspace of the Hilbert space, and the time-evolution does not leave this subspace; the time-evolution is described by a "trivial phase factor" e-iEt therefore the time-dependency does not change the "direction" of the state vector. In that sense the direction is stationary.

In other words, probability amplitude is constant. It should also be stressed that linear superposition of two stationary states is not stationary.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Alesak said:
What is time-indep state anyway? I guess it could be state which does not change with time
If you mean "time-indep. w.r.t. the time-dep. SE" this means that you have to have an eigenvalue E=0.

Alesak said:
It should also be stressed that linear superposition of two stationary states is not stationary.
This is true only if the two states are not degenerate. Think about the hydrogen atom and the quantum numbers nlm. A state like a|nlm>+a'|n'lm> for n≠n' is not an energy eigenstate; but a state like a|nlm>+a'|nlm'> is. Therefore the latter state is stationary.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
41
Views
6K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K