The Time Independence of Normalization

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the time independence of normalization in quantum mechanics, particularly in the context of Griffith's "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics." Participants explore the implications of time-dependent phases in wave functions and the role of the Hamiltonian in maintaining normalization over time.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the validity of showing that normalization is time-independent by simply canceling the time-dependent term in a braket notation, suggesting that there may be more complexity involved.
  • Another participant notes that the general wave function, being a linear combination of eigenfunctions, does not allow for the cancellation of exponential time-dependent phases, indicating that normalization remains constant only under specific conditions.
  • It is mentioned that for a time-independent Hamiltonian, demonstrating the unitarity of the time evolution operator exp(-iHt) is a valid approach, although this is not covered in Griffith's text by page 13.
  • A later reply emphasizes that while the unitarity of the time evolution operator is acknowledged, Griffiths does not introduce these concepts early in the text, which may lead to confusion regarding normalization.
  • Another participant highlights that the integral of the product of the wave function and the Hamiltonian is real, linking it to the time evolution of the normalization condition through Schrödinger's equation.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the treatment of normalization and the introduction of unitary operators in Griffith's text. There is no consensus on the best approach to demonstrate time independence of normalization, indicating ongoing debate.

Contextual Notes

Some participants point out that Griffiths does not introduce certain key concepts, such as unitary operators and the time evolution operator, early in the text, which may limit understanding of the normalization issue. Additionally, the discussion involves assumptions about the conditions under which normalization remains constant.

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 Schrödinger 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 Schrödinger'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.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
7K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
7K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
6K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K