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.
 
Not an expert in QM. AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is quite different from the classical wave equation. The former is an equation for the dynamics of the state of a (quantum?) system, the latter is an equation for the dynamics of a (classical) degree of freedom. As a matter of fact, Schrödinger's equation is first order in time derivatives, while the classical wave equation is second order. But, AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is a wave equation; only its interpretation makes it non-classical...
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
Is it possible, and fruitful, to use certain conceptual and technical tools from effective field theory (coarse-graining/integrating-out, power-counting, matching, RG) to think about the relationship between the fundamental (quantum) and the emergent (classical), both to account for the quasi-autonomy of the classical level and to quantify residual quantum corrections? By “emergent,” I mean the following: after integrating out fast/irrelevant quantum degrees of freedom (high-energy modes...
Back
Top