We know that superposition principle is valid in Quantum Mechanics

dorazyl
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
because Schrodinger equation is a linear differential equation. How do we show that Schrodinger equation is a linear differential equation?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
If you have a second order PDE for a function \psi(x,t), it is of the general form

F(\partial_{tt}\psi,\partial_{xx}\psi,\partial_{xt}\psi,\partial_{t} \psi,\partial_{x}\psi,\psi)=g(x,t)

If the equation is linear, then F is linear with respect to all its arguments, i.e.

F(\partial_{tt}\psi,\partial_{xx}\psi,\partial_{xt}\psi,\partial_{t} \psi,\partial_{x}\psi,\psi,x,t)\\=a(x,t)\partial_{tt}\psi+b(x,t) \partial_{xx} \psi+c(x,t)\partial_{xt}\psi+d(x,t)\partial_{t} \psi+e(x,t)\partial_{x}\psi+f(x,t)\psi

There's no terms proportional to (\partial_{x}\psi)^{2} or something like that.

In the case of time-dependent SE for one 1D particle, we have d(x,t)=i\hbar, b(x,t)=\frac{\hbar^{2}}{2m}, f(x,t)=-V(x,t) and other coefficients are zero.
 
Last edited:
Assume that ##\psi_1## and ##\psi_2## each satisfy the SE. Substitute the linear combination ##a\psi_1 + b\psi_2## (where a and b are constants) into the SE and show that it is also a solution.
 
dorazyl said:
How do we show that Schrodinger equation is a linear differential equation?
The time-dep. SE can be written as

##(i\partial_t - H)\psi = 0##

So if you have two solutions i=1,2 then any linear combination is a solution, too


##(i\partial_t - H)\psi_i = 0 \;\to\; (i\partial_t - H)(a_1\psi_1 + a_2\psi_2) = 0##
 
Actually you have got the cart before the horse. We know the superposition principle is valid because the states form a Hilbert space. That time evolution is linear follows from Wigners theorem and the invariance of the Born Rule:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wigner's_theorem.

Like so much in modern physics its deep reason lies in symmetry which is itself something very deep and interesting. See the following I read ages ago at the library and have been meaning to get a copy myself:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0918024161/?tag=pfamazon01-20

You will find a proper axiomatic development of QM and see what is basic and what isn't in Ballentine's - QM - A Modern Development. There is really only two axioms - the first is about the eigenvalues of operators on a Hilbert Space (that's the reason the superposition principle holds - its a basic property of Hilbert Spaces - but the exact reasoning is interesting and slightly subtle - get the book to see what I mean - it's got to do with so called pure and mixed states), the second is the Born Rule. And from Gleason's Theorem the second follows from the first with a very reasonable assumption so one could argue it really involves just one axiom - strictly speaking it doesn't - you need the second axiom - but the assumption (non contextuality) is just so reasonable at the mathematical level in light of the first.

Thanks
Bill
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
If we release an electron around a positively charged sphere, the initial state of electron is a linear combination of Hydrogen-like states. According to quantum mechanics, evolution of time would not change this initial state because the potential is time independent. However, classically we expect the electron to collide with the sphere. So, it seems that the quantum and classics predict different behaviours!

Similar threads

Replies
46
Views
8K
Replies
2
Views
719
Replies
8
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
143
Views
10K
Back
Top