Wave function phase relationships

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the nature of the wave function and its phase relationships, particularly during orbital state transitions. It emphasizes that the square of the wave function, represented as psi times its conjugate, consistently yields a probability interpretation, but questions whether this holds universally or is limited to specific particle states. The conversation explores the implications of overlapping wave functions, suggesting potential outcomes like entanglement or non-interaction. It also raises concerns about the phase changes of the wave function during transitions, which are influenced by external factors and described by the Schrödinger equation. The relationship between energy conservation, phase space, and the effects of photon absorption or emission is also critically examined.
DmplnJeff
Messages
28
Reaction score
0
The wave function is complex. I was taught that its square (probability) was actually psi times it's conjugate. Does this relationship always hold or was this only for bound and free particles?

In other words is it possible for psi and psi* to change phases during orbital state transitions?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
That's a universal property of complex numbers--the magnitude squared of the number is always equal to the number times its conjugate. You can see this by looking at the definition of a complex number:

Z = x + iy
Z^* = x - iy
ZZ^* = (x + iy)(x - iy) = x^2 -i^2y^2 = x^2 + y^2

So in polar coordinates, where r = \sqrt{x^2 + y^2}, the number times its conjugate will always be r^2.
 
Let us suppose that there are two, spacelike separated electron in coordinate eigenstates. In the next moment, they begin to propagate as two spherical waves. (Better to say: the probability densities do propagate.)

What happens when these waves overlap? There are two possibilities (as I think):

1) The electrons entangle and there will be only one two-electron instead of two electrons,
2) They overlap without any interaction.
 
DmplnJeff said:
The wave function is complex. I was taught that its square (probability) was actually psi times it's conjugate. Does this relationship always hold or was this only for bound and free particles?

Its square modulus is always psi*psi. The easiness with which we ascribe a probabilistic interpretation to this modulus is dictated on whether psi is an element of a Hilbert space, thus is finite norm, or its modulus is finite, so it can be rescaled to unity.

DmplnJeff said:
In other words is it possible for psi and psi* to change phases during orbital state transitions?

The orbital state transitions are determined by an external intervention in an initially closed atomic system. The dynamics is then described by the Schroedinger equation whose solution cannot be really found analytically. The phase of the wavefunction during transition cannot be therefore determined exactly, but only proved to different than the one pertaining to a wavefunction of an unperturbed atomic system.
 
If psi^2 represents the probability distribution of the location, could psi and psi* represent two locations for the same object. For example a point mass could conceivably have a slightly separate location for its momentum moment and its gravitational moment.

Basically I'm trying to understand what solutions are available for Schroedinger's equation during the transition (if Schroedinger's equation applies?). So far what I've read amounts to a transition being some sort of miracle. It just happens.

Possible solutions depend on whether psi^2 is one number squared or two numbers.
 
Let me try rephrasing the question. It's my understanding the Hermitian nature of the phase space arises from the conservation of energy through the Noether theorem.

That theorem applies to non-dissipative spaces. Yet during the absorption (or emission) of a photon energy is not being conserved (locally). Why doesn't that make a difference?
 
Time reversal invariant Hamiltonians must satisfy ##[H,\Theta]=0## where ##\Theta## is time reversal operator. However, in some texts (for example see Many-body Quantum Theory in Condensed Matter Physics an introduction, HENRIK BRUUS and KARSTEN FLENSBERG, Corrected version: 14 January 2016, section 7.1.4) the time reversal invariant condition is introduced as ##H=H^*##. How these two conditions are identical?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 71 ·
3
Replies
71
Views
6K
  • · Replies 59 ·
2
Replies
59
Views
5K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
6K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K