The Time Independence of Normalization

kq6up
Messages
366
Reaction score
13
On page 13 of Griffith's "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics 2nd ed" David goes into a long (relatively speaking) proof of why a normalized pair of quantum state vectors will not at some time later become "un-normalized". It seems like just putting the Psi's in a braket the e^(-it) "time dependence" term would just cancel out -- showing that normalization is not time dependent. Could anyone take a shot at why this is not the case -- other than the fact he has not developed braket notation or shown that the time dependence a separate exponent factor? Maybe I just answered my own question :D Is there anything wrong with showing it this way?

Thanks,
Chris Maness
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The general wave function is built of a linear combination of the eigenfunctions. When you do this, the exponential time-dependent phases do not cancel out. When he shows that the normalization remains constant in time, he shows it for a general wave function that is a solution of just the Schrodinger equation, and not the eigenvalue equation in general.
 
Jorriss said:
While this is true, Griffiths does not introduce unitary operators, the time evolution operator, etc I believe and he certainly does not do it by page 13.

Well, it's enough to know that

\int \psi^* H \psi dx

is real. That's because Schrodinger's equation implies that:

\dfrac{d}{dt} \int \psi^* \psi dx = \dfrac{2}{\hbar} Im(\int \psi^* H \psi dx)

where Im means the imaginary part.
 
I read Hanbury Brown and Twiss's experiment is using one beam but split into two to test their correlation. It said the traditional correlation test were using two beams........ This confused me, sorry. All the correlation tests I learnt such as Stern-Gerlash are using one beam? (Sorry if I am wrong) I was also told traditional interferometers are concerning about amplitude but Hanbury Brown and Twiss were concerning about intensity? Isn't the square of amplitude is the intensity? Please...
I am not sure if this belongs in the biology section, but it appears more of a quantum physics question. Mike Wiest, Associate Professor of Neuroscience at Wellesley College in the US. In 2024 he published the results of an experiment on anaesthesia which purported to point to a role of quantum processes in consciousness; here is a popular exposition: https://neurosciencenews.com/quantum-process-consciousness-27624/ As my expertise in neuroscience doesn't reach up to an ant's ear...
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
Back
Top