Understanding QM Proof: Wavefunction in Orthonormal Eigenfunctions

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the mathematical representation of quantum mechanics, specifically the proof involving the wavefunction expressed in terms of orthonormal eigenfunctions of the Hamiltonian. Participants explore the relationship between the wavefunction, its coefficients, and the eigenfunctions in both position and momentum bases.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the disappearance of coefficients ##a_j## in the expression for the wavefunction and seeks clarification on the relationship between ##u_j(r)## and ##u_j(r')##.
  • Another participant provides a detailed derivation of the expression, emphasizing the role of the Hamiltonian and the time evolution of eigenstates.
  • A later reply clarifies that ##|E_j\rangle## is an eigenstate of the Hamiltonian, while ##u_j(r) = \langle r | E_j \rangle## represents this state in the position basis, suggesting that different bases can represent the same state vector.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express varying levels of understanding regarding the mathematical relationships and representations involved, indicating that multiple interpretations and clarifications are present without a clear consensus.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight potential confusion regarding the notation and the distinction between eigenstates and their representations in different bases, which may depend on the specific context of quantum mechanics being discussed.

Silviu
Messages
612
Reaction score
11
Hello! I have a proof in my QM book that: ##\left<r|e^{-iHt}|r'\right> = \sum_j e^{-iHt} u_j(r)u_j^*(r')##, where, for a wavefunction ##\psi(r,t)##, ##u_j## 's are the orthonormal eigenfunctions of the Hamiltonian and ##|r>## is the coordinate space representation of ##\psi##. I am not sure I understand this. Like in general ##\psi = \sum_j a_j u_j## and I don't know where the ##a_j##'s disappeared. Also I am not sure what is the relation between ##u_j(r)## and ##u_j(r')##. Is there any formula linking them? Thank you!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Have a look at the following and check if you understand it. Note what happens with the exponent - you got this wrong in your post.
##
\begin{eqnarray*}
\langle r|e^{-iHt}|r'\rangle &=& \langle r|e^{-iHt} \left( \sum_j |E_j\rangle \langle E_j| \right) |r'\rangle\\
&=& \langle r| \sum_j e^{-iHt} |E_j\rangle \langle E_j |r'\rangle\\
&=& \langle r| \sum_j e^{-iE_jt} |E_j\rangle \langle E_j |r'\rangle\\
&=& \sum_j e^{-iE_jt} \langle r|E_j\rangle \langle E_j|r' \rangle\\
&=& \sum_j e^{-iE_jt} u_j(r) u_j^{*}(r')
\end{eqnarray*}
##
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71 and BvU
kith said:
Have a look at the following and check if you understand it. Note what happens with the exponent - you got this wrong in your post.
##
\begin{eqnarray*}
\langle r|e^{-iHt}|r'\rangle &=& \langle r|e^{-iHt} \left( \sum_j |E_j\rangle \langle E_j| \right) |r'\rangle\\
&=& \langle r| \sum_j e^{-iHt} |E_j\rangle \langle E_j |r'\rangle\\
&=& \langle r| \sum_j e^{-iE_jt} |E_j\rangle \langle E_j |r'\rangle\\
&=& \sum_j e^{-iE_jt} \langle r|E_j\rangle \langle E_j|r' \rangle\\
&=& \sum_j e^{-iE_jt} u_j(r) u_j^{*}(r')
\end{eqnarray*}
##
Thank you for your reply. I understand the logic of it. However I am a bit confused. From what I see ##\|E_j>## is an eigenfunction of the hamiltonian, but ##u_j## is that, too. What is the difference between them?
 
[itex]|E_j \rangle[/itex] is an eigenstate of the Hamiltonian, i.e. it is a vector in Hilbert space.

[itex]u_j(r) = \langle r | E_j \rangle[/itex] is a representation of the state [itex]|E_j \rangle[/itex] which uses the position basis. You can use many different bases to represent the same state vector. [itex]\tilde u_j(p) = \langle p | E_j \rangle[/itex] for example uses the momentum basis and refers to the same state [itex]|E_j \rangle[/itex].
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71

Similar threads

  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
1K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K