Time Independence of the Momentum Uncertainty for a Free Particle Wave

uxioq99
Messages
11
Reaction score
4
Homework Statement
Prove that ##\frac{\sigma_p}{dt} = 0## for a freely moving wave packet in the absence of a potential. (Here, ##\sigma_p## denotes momentum uncertainty.)
Relevant Equations
##\frac{\sigma_p}{dt} = 0##
Mine is a simple question, so I shall keep development at a minimum. If a particle is moving in the absence of a potential (##V(x) = 0##), then
##\frac{\langle\hat p \rangle}{dt} = \langle -\frac{\partial V}{\partial x}\rangle=0##
will require that the momentum expectation value remains constant in time. Now, I must prove that ##\langle \hat p^2 \rangle## is also constant in time. I used the kinetic energy formula ##\hat T = \frac{\hat p^2}{2m}## to assert that ##\frac{d\langle p \rangle}{dt} = 2m\frac{d\langle T\rangle}{dt}=0## because the total kinetic energy of a freely moving particle is conserved. I justified my claim by arguing that there cannot be any work in the absence of a potential so that potential must be constant. Then, the momentum uncertainty ##\sigma_p = \sqrt{\langle p^2 \rangle - \langle p \rangle^2}## is formed from two functions that are constant in time is consequently time-invariant itself.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It seems all right to me.  You may check it directly from momentum wavefunction which you get from Gaussian coordinate wavefunction with growing dispersion, by Fourier transform.
 
Last edited:
uxioq99 said:
Homework Statement:: Prove that ##\frac{\sigma_p}{dt} = 0## for a freely moving wave packet in the absence of a potential. (Here, ##\sigma_p## denotes momentum uncertainty.)
Relevant Equations:: ##\frac{\sigma_p}{dt} = 0##

Mine is a simple question, so I shall keep development at a minimum. If a particle is moving in the absence of a potential (##V(x) = 0##), then
##\frac{\langle\hat p \rangle}{dt} = \langle -\frac{\partial V}{\partial x}\rangle=0##
will require that the momentum expectation value remains constant in time. Now, I must prove that ##\langle \hat p^2 \rangle## is also constant in time. I used the kinetic energy formula ##\hat T = \frac{\hat p^2}{2m}## to assert that ##\frac{d\langle p \rangle}{dt} = 2m\frac{d\langle T\rangle}{dt}=0## because the total kinetic energy of a freely moving particle is conserved. I justified my claim by arguing that there cannot be any work in the absence of a potential so that potential must be constant. Then, the momentum uncertainty ##\sigma_p = \sqrt{\langle p^2 \rangle - \langle p \rangle^2}## is formed from two functions that are constant in time is consequently time-invariant itself.
I'm not totally convinced. Why can you assume conservation of KE? The concept of "work" is not very QM.

An alternative is to consider the relationship between momentum and a potential-free Hamiltonian.
 
I'd solve the time-dependent Schrödinger equation in momentum representation, given an arbitrary square-integrable ##\psi(t=0,\vec{p})=\psi_0(\vec{p})## and then think about, how to calculate ##\sigma_p(t)## with it.
 
Thread 'Need help understanding this figure on energy levels'
This figure is from "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" by Griffiths (3rd edition). It is available to download. It is from page 142. I am hoping the usual people on this site will give me a hand understanding what is going on in the figure. After the equation (4.50) it says "It is customary to introduce the principal quantum number, ##n##, which simply orders the allowed energies, starting with 1 for the ground state. (see the figure)" I still don't understand the figure :( Here is...
Thread 'Understanding how to "tack on" the time wiggle factor'
The last problem I posted on QM made it into advanced homework help, that is why I am putting it here. I am sorry for any hassle imposed on the moderators by myself. Part (a) is quite easy. We get $$\sigma_1 = 2\lambda, \mathbf{v}_1 = \begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ 0 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_2 = \lambda, \mathbf{v}_2 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_3 = -\lambda, \mathbf{v}_3 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ -1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} $$ There are two ways...
Back
Top