The imaginary part of the wave function

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter LarryS
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the role of the imaginary part of the wave function in non-relativistic quantum mechanics (QM), particularly in the context of solving the Schrödinger Equation. Participants explore whether the imaginary part can be derived from the real part and the implications of focusing on one over the other in various educational materials.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants note that while the wave function is complex-valued, many educational resources emphasize the real part, questioning if this is due to the imaginary part being derivable through a phase shift.
  • Others argue that certain texts, such as Griffiths & Schroeter, provide complex solutions, particularly for systems like the hydrogen atom, suggesting that the claim of focusing solely on the real part is not universally applicable.
  • A participant mentions that in chemistry, real-valued orbitals are often preferred, while physics typically utilizes complex-valued ones, indicating a disciplinary difference in approach.
  • It is proposed that the time-dependent Schrödinger equation allows for different representations of wave functions, including purely imaginary eigenfunctions, which can represent the same physical states.
  • One participant emphasizes that while real parts may suffice for certain solutions, the imaginary parts are crucial in superpositions of states with different energy eigenvalues, affecting the probability density over time.
  • Corrections are made regarding the equations presented, highlighting the importance of accurate mathematical representation in the discussion.
  • Some participants express skepticism about the claim that most resources focus only on the real part, suggesting that visual representations may limit the depiction of complex functions.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on whether educational materials predominantly focus on the real part of the wave function. Multiple perspectives exist regarding the treatment of complex wave functions in different contexts, and the discussion remains unresolved on this point.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include varying definitions of what constitutes "focus" on the real part, differences in disciplinary practices between physics and chemistry, and the potential for misinterpretation of visual representations of complex functions.

LarryS
Gold Member
Messages
359
Reaction score
33
TL;DR
How is the imaginary part of the wave function related to the real part?
In non-relativistic QM, the wave function is complex-valued. But in my experience, most of the books and lectures, when solving the Schrödinger Equation, focus only on the real part of the solution. Is that because the imaginary part of the solution can always be determined from the real part by applying a 90 phase shift?

Thanks in advance.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
LarryS said:
In non-relativistic QM, the wave function is complex-valued. But in my experience, most of the books and lectures, when solving the Schrödinger Equation, focus only on the real part of the solution.
I don't see that at all.
Consider, e.g., Griffiths & Schroeter, Introduction to Quantum Mechanics (3rd ed.) in which the authors solve for the wave functions of the hydrogen atom:
1766599058043.webp

Here the spherical harmonics ##Y^m_l\left(\theta,\phi\right)## are given by:
1766599319249.webp

The ##\psi_{nlm}## are clearly complex for all ##m\neq 0##.
What books are you finding that "focus only on the real part of the solution"?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: bhobba, marcusl, PeterDonis and 1 other person
We had a related discussion a while ago:
Cthugha said:
In chemistry, often real-valued orbitals are preferred, while in physics often complex-valued ones are used.
One can use different linear combinations of the spherical harmonics, combining the ## e^{+im\phi} ## and ## e^{-im\phi} ## terms into ## \sin m\phi ## and ## \cos m\phi ## terms. Chemists are rarely interested in systems with exact spherical symmetry.

The time-dependent Schrödinger equation has a companion that has ## i ## replaced by ## -i ##, describing a wave function evolving backwards in time. For systems invariant under time reversal the functions are identical, and the stationary states can be represented by real functions (## \Phi^* = \Phi ##). But if you wish you can also multiply by ## i ## and choose purely imaginary eigenfunctions. They represent exactly the same states.

This changes when magnetic fields are involved, because they destroy time reversal symmetry.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: LarryS
LarryS said:
TL;DR: How is the imaginary part of the wave function related to the real part?

In non-relativistic QM, the wave function is complex-valued. But in my experience, most of the books and lectures, when solving the Schrödinger Equation, focus only on the real part of the solution. Is that because the imaginary part of the solution can always be determined from the real part by applying a 90 phase shift?

Thanks in advance.
Introductory textbooks usually deal a lot with time-independent Hamiltonians of the form$$H=\frac{\mathbf{P}^2}{2 m}+V(\mathbf{x})\quad ,$$like potential wells, harmonic oscillator and the Hydrogen atom. The common practice is to look for energy eigenfunctions by separating variables, i.e. solutions of the form$$\psi_n(\mathbf{x},t)=\phi_n(\mathbf{x})\chi_n(t)\quad.$$This yields the time-independent equation$$-\frac{\hbar^2}{2 m}\nabla^2\phi_n+V\phi_n=E_n\phi_n$$which is real, and therefore we should not be surprised that it has real solutions. The other equation,$$i\hbar\frac{\partial\chi_n}{\partial t}=E_n\chi_n\quad,$$is solved by$$\chi_n=e^{-i \hbar E_n t}\quad,$$so it is just a "rigid rotation" of ##\psi_n## in the complex plane, and the probability density ##~|\psi_n|^2~## is constant in time.

Up to this point, the real parts may be regarded as "sufficient" for the physical content. But we also want wavefunctions ##\psi## that are superpositions of the ##\psi_n~##. If two or more different energy eigenvalues are involved (in the superposition), the imaginary parts make a difference, causing the probability density ##~|\psi|^2~## to change over time. So the additional information "carried" by the imaginary part is essential, and can not be extracted from the real part.

Edit: corrected typo in equation. Thanks to @renormalize for his remark in #5.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: bhobba, Nugatory, Spinnor and 5 others
JimWhoKnew said:
The common practice is to look for energy eigenfunctions by separating variables, i.e. solutions of the form$$\psi_n(\mathbf{x},t)=\phi_n(\mathbf{x})\chi_n(t)\quad.$$This yields the time-independent equation$$-\frac{\hbar^2}{2 m}\nabla^2\psi_n+V\psi_n=E_n\psi_n$$which is real, and therefore we should not be surprised that it has real solutions.
I think you meant to write:$$-\frac{\hbar^2}{2 m}\nabla^2\phi_n+V\phi_n=E_n\phi_n$$
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: bhobba and JimWhoKnew
JimWhoKnew said:
$$\chi_n=e^{-i \hbar E_n t}\quad,$$
FWIW there is a typo'. It should be ##\chi_n=e^{-i \frac { E_n}{\hbar} t}##.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: JimWhoKnew
LarryS said:
But in my experience, most of the books and lectures, when solving the Schrödinger Equation, focus only on the real part of the solution.
I have never seen that in any book. Unless you mean the drawing of the wave function, it's difficult to draw a complex function, so drawings often present only the real part.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: bhobba and renormalize

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K