Wavefunction Normalization at Different Times

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the normalization of a time-dependent wave function in quantum mechanics, specifically addressing whether the normalization constant can vary with time and the implications of such variations on expectation values. Participants explore the mathematical treatment of wave functions at different times and the conditions under which normalization is performed.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions whether it is valid to normalize a wave function at a time other than t=0, suggesting that doing so could lead to multiple normalization constants and inconsistent expectation values.
  • Another participant asserts that normalization is a constant over time, implying that the choice of time does not affect the normalization constant.
  • A participant provides specific calculations for the normalization constant at t=0 and t=2, indicating that they yield different results, which raises concerns about the validity of the normalization process.
  • It is noted that the absolute value of the normalization constant is what matters, while the phase can be chosen arbitrarily.
  • One participant suggests rewriting the wave function in a different form to clarify the normalization process and its dependence on time.
  • Another participant introduces a hypothetical wave function without the imaginary unit, questioning its status as an eigen-function of the Schrödinger equation.
  • A later reply discusses the concept of arbitrary normalization, stating that there are infinitely many possible normalizations differing by a phase factor, which are considered physically equivalent.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the implications of normalizing at different times, with some asserting that it leads to different constants while others argue that normalization is independent of the chosen time. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the correctness of normalization at arbitrary times.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference specific mathematical forms of the wave function and the implications of complex phases in normalization, indicating that the discussion is contingent on the definitions and assumptions made about the wave function's form.

user3
Messages
59
Reaction score
0
In Introduction to Quantum Mechanics by Griffith, when he is normalizing a wave function that's dependent on both x and t, he let's t=0 , and solves for the constant (A). But if the integration of ψ^2 at any time t is 1, then is it correct to let t = 2, for instance, instead of 0 and solve for A? If yes, that would mean that A could be an infinite number of different A's, and that would be wrong because we would get different values for expectation values of position for every constant A. And if No, explain why please.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
user3 said:
In Introduction to Quantum Mechanics by Griffith, when he is normalizing a wave function that's dependent on both x and t, he let's t=0 , and solves for the constant (A). But if the integration of ψ^2 at any time t is 1, then is it correct to let t = 2, for instance, instead of 0 and solve for A? If yes, that would mean that A could be an infinite number of different A's, and that would be wrong because we would get different values for expectation values of position for every constant A. And if No, explain why please.

Since the normalization is a constant over time, it doesn't matter which moment you choose to normalize it -- you'll get the same normalization constant.
 
If you normalize this wave function at t=0 and at t=2, you don't get the same constant:
ψ=Ae^[ -a[(mx^2)/hbar + i t] ] where m, a ,and A are positive real constants.


at t = 0 , you get A=(2am/hbar pi) ^1/4 (solution)

at t=2 , I got A = e^4ai * (2am/hbar pi) ^1/4

if i hadn't done a stupid mistake in the calculations.
 
user3 said:
If you normalize this wave function at t=0 and at t=2, you don't get the same constant:
ψ=Ae^[ -a[(mx^2)/hbar + i t] ] where m, a ,and A are positive real constants.


at t = 0 , you get A=(2am/hbar pi) ^1/4 (solution)

at t=2 , I got A = e^4ai * (2am/hbar pi) ^1/4

if i hadn't done a stupid mistake in the calculations.

The only thing that matters for normalization constant A is the absolute value, |A|. The phase can be chosen arbitrarily.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person
user3 said:
at t = 0 , you get A=(2am/hbar pi) ^1/4 (solution)

This is correct.

at t=2 , I got A = e^4ai * (2am/hbar pi) ^1/4

This is incorrect. Hint: write your wave function in the form
$$\Psi(x,t) = Ae^{-amx^2/\hbar}e^{-iat}$$
which might make things slightly more obvious.

When you calculate ##|\Psi|^2 = \Psi^*\Psi##, what happens to the factor that contains t? Remember that ##\Psi^*## means complex conjugate of ##\Psi##.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person
but what happens if the "i" was not there: ψ=Ae^[ -a[(mx^2)/hbar + t] ] ?
 
user3 said:
but what happens if the "i" was not there: ψ=Ae^[ -a[(mx^2)/hbar + t] ] ?


That is not an eigen-function of the Schrödinger equation...
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person
Then it's a mistake. (It's not a phase)
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person
To choose the normalization, fix the time (any time will do). Even at any fixed time, there are an infinite number of possible normalizations, just different by ##\exp(i\theta)##, where ##\theta## is a constant. These different normalizations are physically equivalent, just like in electrostatics the zero of potential is arbitrary. So just pick one.

Schroedinger's equation will take care that the wave function at other times remains correct.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
16K