TISE in the position representation- basic question

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Lucy Yeats
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Position Representation
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the application of the time-independent Schrödinger equation (TISE) in the position representation, specifically addressing the validity of operating on wavefunctions, which are probability amplitudes. Participants explore the mathematical framework and conceptual understanding of how operators interact with these wavefunctions.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the validity of applying the TISE to wavefunctions, expressing confusion about how operators can act on probability amplitudes.
  • Another participant asserts that wavefunctions are functions of space and time, and thus operators can operate on them as they would on any function in calculus.
  • A participant seeks clarification on a specific mathematical manipulation involving bras and kets, particularly why =H holds true.
  • One response explains the process of expressing the Hamiltonian in the position representation, including the use of the identity operator and how potential terms are represented.
  • Another participant elaborates on the action of operators on ket states, noting that they yield eigenvalues and discussing the positional forms of operators like momentum.
  • There is a suggestion that the introduction of bra-ket notation was to generalize the concept beyond just positional representations, implying a foundational equivalence between wavefunctions and the bra-ket formalism.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the foundational aspects of applying operators to wavefunctions, with some providing clarifications while others remain uncertain about specific manipulations. No consensus is reached on the initial question regarding the validity of the TISE application.

Contextual Notes

Some participants' arguments depend on specific mathematical manipulations that may not be fully resolved, and there are assumptions about the equivalence of different representations that are not universally accepted in the discussion.

Lucy Yeats
Messages
117
Reaction score
0
We were told in lectures that the time independent Schrödinger equation can be applied to wavefunctions, i.e. \frac{hbar^2}{2m}\frac{d^2U}{dx^2}+V(x)U=EU where U is the wavefunction bra x ket psi. I don't understand why this is valid, as wavefunctions are probability amplitudes, and operators can't operate on mere numbers. Could someone explain how this result is derived? In other words, how do you apply the TISE in the position representation?

Thanks in advance for your help! :smile:
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Wave functions are probability amplitudes, as such they are functions of space (and time). Operators in the position representation operate on functions of space (and time), so I don't see what's the problem.

You apply it like you would apply a (second) derivative and multiplication to any function from regular calculus.
 
Thanks for your help.
To rephrase my question:
H/En>=En/En> (where /x> is ket x)
Multiplying by bra x, <x/H/En>=En<x/En>.
I would like to know why <x/H/En>=H<x/En>.
 
Abstractly, in terms of bras and kets, H|ψ> = E|ψ>. If we want to write this in the x representation, we multiply on the left by <x|, and also insert the identity operator, in the form I = ∫|x>d3x<x|

∫<x|H|x'>d3x'<x'|ψ> = E<x|ψ>

Then <x|ψ> is the wavefunction ψ(x), and <x|H|x'> is the Hamiltonian expressed as an operator acting on functions of x. For example, the V term is <x|V|x'> = V(x) δ3(x - x').
 
Lucy Yeats said:
Thanks for your help.
To rephrase my question:
H/En>=En/En> (where /x> is ket x)
Multiplying by bra x, <x/H/En>=En<x/En>.
I would like to know why <x/H/En>=H<x/En>.

Well, you can convince yourself this way:
&lt;x| \dfrac{p^2}{2m} |\Psi&gt;
= &lt;x| \dfrac{p^2}{2m} |k&gt;&lt;k|\Psi&gt;
= &lt;x| \dfrac{h^2 k^2}{2m} |k&gt;&lt;k|\Psi&gt;
= \dfrac{h^2 k^2}{2m} &lt;x|k&gt;&lt;k|\Psi&gt;
= \dfrac{h^2 k^2}{2m} \dfrac{1}{2\pi} e^{i kx} &lt;k|\Psi&gt;
= - \dfrac{h^2}{2m} \dfrac{\partial^2}{\partial x^2} \dfrac{1}{2\pi} e^{i kx} &lt;k|\Psi&gt;
= - \dfrac{h^2}{2m} \dfrac{\partial^2}{\partial x^2} &lt;x|k&gt;&lt;k|\Psi&gt;
= - \dfrac{h^2}{2m} \dfrac{\partial^2}{\partial x^2} &lt;x|\Psi&gt;
 
When operator act on a ket state, it produces an eigenvalue which is merely number and commutes with everything. Also, operators have their own positional form, such as momentum operator which we usually know as the partial derivative with respect to space. Written like that, I think it would be more reasonable to act on a function of space.

In addition, wavefunction came up first, and bra-ket are introduced later to be more general rather than specific to positional. Therefore, physicists definitely have ensured that they are equivalent.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 56 ·
2
Replies
56
Views
5K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 59 ·
2
Replies
59
Views
6K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K