What does a zero-value of the Born-condition mean?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the physical meaning of certain integrals related to wave functions in quantum mechanics, specifically focusing on cases where these integrals yield zero or undefined values. Participants explore implications for normalization, average position, and average momentum, as well as the applicability of specific wave functions.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest that the integral of the wave function squared being zero implies the wave function itself must be zero.
  • Others argue that an average position of zero does not necessarily negate the physical application of the wave function.
  • There is a claim that the average momentum being undefined raises questions about the normalization of the wave function.
  • Some participants discuss the implications of using delta functions and their relation to average momentum and kinetic energy.
  • A participant shares a complex wave function and expresses difficulty in normalizing it, leading to a discussion on the number of normalization constants involved.
  • Concerns are raised about the integrability of certain wave functions, particularly those proportional to oscillatory functions or hyperbolic functions.
  • There is a suggestion that numerical computations in MATLAB may yield misleading results due to the scale of parameters used.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the implications of zero-value integrals and the physical meaning of wave functions with undefined average momentum. There is no consensus on the normalization issues or the applicability of the discussed wave functions.

Contextual Notes

Some participants note that certain wave functions may not satisfy normalization conditions or may not be square integrable over the entire real line. There are also references to specific editions of textbooks that may contain differing information.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to students and professionals in quantum mechanics, particularly those exploring wave function properties, normalization issues, and numerical methods in computational physics.

SeM
Hi, I was wondering what is the physical meaning of these integrals:

\begin{equation}
\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \psi \psi^* dx = 0
\end{equation}\begin{equation}
\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \psi x \psi^* dx = 0
\end{equation}

\begin{equation}
\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \psi p \psi^* dx = NA
\end{equation}

?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Demystifier said:
Where did you find this expression?

By a function I have been calculating on
 
Demystifier said:
What is ##t##? Time? 3-volume?
Sorry, I should have used x. Corrected.
 
(1) implies ##\psi=0##.
(2) means that average position is zero.
(3) means that the average momentum is not well defined.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: SeM
Demystifier said:
(1) implies ##\psi=0##.

This part is not clear to me. Evidently, Psi and Psi* are hermitian counterparts, so their multiplication with one another ends up with zero.

Demystifier said:
(2) means that average position is zero.
This is OK. But does that mean the wavefunction has not physical application?

Demystifier said:
(3) means that the average momentum is not well defined.

This is fine. Does normalization solve this?
 
SeM said:
Evidently, Psi and Psi* are hermitian counterparts, so their multiplication with one another ends up with zero.
No. For properly normalized wave functions you should have ##\int \psi^*\psi dx=1##.

SeM said:
But does that mean the wavefunction has not physical application?
No, such wave functions have a lot of applications. For instance, the ground state of harmonic oscillator has zero average position.

SeM said:
Does normalization solve this?
Probably not. Consider, for example, the delta-function ##\delta(x)##. It has undefined average momentum and change of normalization does not help.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: SeM
Demystifier said:
No. For properly normalized wave functions you should have ##\int \psi^*\psi dx=1##.

Is there any chance of solving this constant by setting the integral:

\begin{equation}
N^2 \int_0^L \psi \psi^* dx = 1
\end{equation}

and solve for N?

I tried and got complex conjugates, in fact, not only one, but two.

Demystifier said:
No, such wave functions have a lot of applications. For instance, the ground state of harmonic oscillator has zero average position.

Thanks for this interesting point! Do you know of a paper that reports such a wavefunction?

Demystifier said:
Probably not. Consider, for example, the delta-function ##\delta(x)##. It has undefined average momentum and change of normalization does not help.

What does one do with such wavefunctions without a well-defined momentum and kinetic energy?
 
  • #10
SeM said:
Is there any chance of solving this constant by setting the integral:

\begin{equation}
N^2 \int_0^L \psi \psi^* dx = 1
\end{equation}

and solve for N?
Yes, provided that N is assumed to be real. (Otherwise, you should write ##N^*N## instead of ##N^2##.)

SeM said:
I tried and got complex conjugates, in fact, not only one, but two.
Take into account that N is assumed to be real.

SeM said:
Thanks for this interesting point! Do you know of a paper that reports such a wavefunction?
Any textbook on quantum mechanics (QM) should do. Which book on QM do you use?

SeM said:
What does one do with such wavefunctions without a well-defined momentum and kinetic energy?
Such a ##\delta##-function is an idealization of a more realistic case of a very narrow Gaussian. Even though the idealization is not realistic, it is OK as long as you only consider positions and not momenta or energy.
 
  • #11
Demystifier said:
Yes, provided that N is assumed to be real. (Otherwise, you should write ##N^*N## instead of ##N^2##.)

Take into account that N is assumed to be real.
Tried and got two weird values.

Let me share this strange wavefunction with the forum here:

\begin{equation}
\psi(x)= \frac{e^{-x(k_2-k_1)}\big(\sqrt{E-2\gamma^2}+\gamma i\big)}{2\sqrt{E-2\gamma^2}}-\frac{e^{-x(k_1+k_2)}\big(-\sqrt{E-2\gamma^2}+\gamma i\big)}{2\sqrt{E-2\gamma^2}}
\end{equation}

Demystifier said:
Any textbook on quantum mechanics (QM) should do. Which book on QM do you use?
Molecular Quantum Mechanics, there they normalize it, and get nice eigenfunctions. This function however, gave two horrible Normalization constants, of the length of half a page, and cannot really give a worse starting point for generating higher energy levels.
 
  • #12
In your wave function I see only one (not two) implicit values of N, and I see nothing strange with it.
 
  • #13
Demystifier said:
In your wave function I see only one (not two) implicit values of N, and I see nothing strange with it.

This function is without N. I had two initial conditions for the original ODE, first y(0)=1 and y'(0)=0 , and got this function. This function follows the integrals given in the first post.

Therefore I was looking for adding a normalization constant to the integrals.
 
  • #14
SeM said:
This function follows the integrals given in the first post.
This function does not satisfy your Eq. (1).
 
  • #15
SeM said:
Molecular Quantum Mechanics
Author please!
 
  • #16
Demystifier said:
Author please!
Atkins and Friedman
 
  • #17
Demystifier said:
This function does not satisfy your Eq. (1).

you need k_1 and k_2, these are:\begin{equation}
k_1 = {\frac{\,\sqrt{E-2\,\gamma^2}}{\hbar}}
\end{equation}

\begin{equation}
k_2 = \frac{\gamma i}{\hbar}
\end{equation}##\gamma = 5^{-28}## and E is the zero point energy. If you still get that integral 1 is not satisfied, then MATLAB is crap
 
  • #18
SeM said:
Atkins and Friedman
Are you a chemist? I ask because it looks like you miss the basic foundations of QM. In any case, study first Chapters 1 and 2 of the book. For instance, in Fig. 2.27 (fourth edition) all wave functions have zero average position.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: SeM
  • #19
Yes, but this model has not potential energy. and Yes I am a chemist.

What can I do to develop this model further as it does not follow the Hamiltonian on p 55, chapter 2, where fig 2.27 is.

Thanks!
 
  • #20
SeM said:
p 55, chapter 2, where fig 2.27 is.
We must be using different editions of the book. Mine is the 4th edition. In any case, try to compute ##\int \psi^*\psi dx## again and show that it is a positive real number. You cannot make any progress before you do that.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: SeM and vanhees71
  • #21
Sorry to barge in, but your wavefunction model is proportional to ##\cosh (k_1x)##, which is not square integrable for ##x\in (-\infty,\infty)##. Moreover, the wavefunction is also proportional to an oscillatory function whose wave number is extremely large ##~10^{-28}/10^{-34} \approx 10^6##. It can be the reason why MATLAB returns zero. Have you tried executing "format long" command to extend the decimal places in the output ?
 
  • #22
blue_leaf77 said:
Sorry to barge in, but your wavefunction model is proportional to ##\cosh (k_1x)##, which is not square integrable for ##x\in (-\infty,\infty)##. Moreover, the wavefunction is also proportional to an oscillatory function whose wave number is extremely large ##~10^{-28}/10^{-34} \approx 10^6##. It can be the reason why MATLAB returns zero. Have you tried executing "format long" command to extend the decimal places in the output ?
His wave function probably needs to be defined in a box of finite length ##L##, as suggested in post #9.
 
  • #23
SeM said:
##\gamma = 5^{-28}## ... If you still get that integral 1 is not satisfied, then MATLAB is crap
One of the first rules in any numerical computation (with MATLAB or anything else) is to first introduce new dimensionless variables (which are certain ratios of the dimensional ones) such that all relevant parameters are of the order of unity. Very big and very small numbers are always potentially dangerous in numerical computations.
 
  • #24
Demystifier said:
We must be using different editions of the book. Mine is the 4th edition. In any case, try to compute ##\int \psi^*\psi dx## again and show that it is a positive real number. You cannot make any progress before you do that.

Thanks! Can you possibly scan the page or mention any of the subttiles of the page or preceeding pages, so I may look for it in the book?

I will recompute the integral tomorrow and see if it gives another value in the meantime.

Cheers
 
  • #25
Demystifier said:
His wave function probably needs to be defined in a box of finite length ##L##, as suggested in post #9.
Defining it in a box of length L, implies that I do this:Psi(x) = 0 , L=0

Psi(x) = 0 , L=Land I add a normalization constant N^2 to the Born intergral, and then use L=L and L=0 as the limits?

I then solve for this integral, but x will still be there...?
 
  • #26
SeM said:
Thanks! Can you possibly scan the page or mention any of the subttiles of the page or preceeding pages, so I may look for it in the book?
Search for the section The harmonic oscillator - The solutions.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: SeM
  • #27
SeM said:
Defining it in a box of length L, implies that I do this:Psi(x) = 0 , L=0

Psi(x) = 0 , L=Land I add a normalization constant N^2 to the Born intergral, and then use L=L and L=0 as the limits?

I then solve for this integral, but x will still be there...?
You mean x=0 and x=L. When you integrate over x from 0 to L, then x is no longer there.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: SeM
  • #28
Demystifier said:
You mean x=0 and x=L. When you integrate over x from 0 to L, then x is no longer there.

Indeed! Sorry for that mistake. I will try this tomorrow,

All the best
 
  • #29
Demystifier said:
You mean x=0 and x=L. When you integrate over x from 0 to L, then x is no longer there.
Demystifier said:
Search for the section The harmonic oscillator - The solutions.

Dear Demystifier, I have gone through the Further information on chap. 2.2 Harmonic Oscillator, and it appears as that I have to solve the Schrödinger eqn using the annhalation and creation operators, instead of solving it numerically, as I did and got that strange wavefunction.

Thanks for your tip. This becomes an entirely new project, because it's currently huge.

Thanks!
 
  • #30
Well, if you want to learn quantum chemistry, you cannot avoid learning more about harmonic oscillator.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
3K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 59 ·
2
Replies
59
Views
6K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K