What does this equation for a free particle mean?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the interpretation and manipulation of a piecewise wave function for a free particle in quantum mechanics. Participants explore the normalization of the wave function, the calculation of expectation values, and the implications of time evolution in quantum systems.

Discussion Character

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

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents a piecewise wave function and questions the meaning of its components and boundary conditions.
  • Another participant suggests that the wave function does not need to represent anything specific and is primarily a tool for calculations in quantum mechanics.
  • There is a discussion about the normalization of the wave function, with participants debating the correct approach to integrate the piecewise function.
  • Some participants express uncertainty about the implications of the complex conjugate in the normalization process.
  • A later reply emphasizes that any continuous function can serve as a solution to the time-dependent Schrödinger equation at time t=0.
  • Participants discuss the necessity of expressing the wave function as a linear combination of energy eigenstates for proper time evolution.
  • There is a query about whether to change the variable E in the time evolution term, indicating uncertainty about the best approach.
  • One participant mentions Ehrenfest's theorem and questions how to relate expectation values at different times.
  • Another participant points out that the evolution of momentum for a free particle should be considered in the context of the discussion.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the interpretation of the piecewise function or the correct method for normalization and expectation value calculations. Multiple competing views remain regarding the implications of the wave function's form and the approach to time evolution.

Contextual Notes

Some participants highlight limitations in the continuity and differentiability of the wave function, as well as the need for clarity in the integration limits when normalizing the function. There is also mention of the need to consider the time evolution of expectation values based on the initial state.

Rob Turrentine
Messages
9
Reaction score
0
So there's a free particle with mass m.

\begin{equation}

\psi(x,0) = e^{ip_ox/\hbar}\cdot\begin{cases}

x^2 & 0 \leq x < 1,\\

-x^2 + 4x -2 & 1 \leq x < 3,\\

x^2 -8x +16 & 3 \leq x \leq 4, \\

0 & \text{otherwise}.

\end{cases}

\end{equation}

What does each part of the piecewise represent? And what are the boundary conditions representative of? Energy levels?

I'm used to working with non-piecewise functions, like \begin{equation} \psi = Ae^{ikx} + Be^{-ikx} \end{equation}
so I'm just not sure what to do.
The goal is to normalize it and then find <X> and <P> as functions of time.

Any help is greatly appreciated!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You are thinking of eigenfunctions of a Hamiltonian. A wave function can generally be any normalisable function satisfying the appropriate boundary conditions. It need not be an eigenfunction of a Hamiltonian.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: bhobba
You should graph the part that multiplies ##e^{i \frac{p_0 x}{\hbar}}##. I don't think there's any particular meaning to its shape. It's just a nice curve that is continuous, and which has a continuous first derivative (though not second derivative).
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Rob Turrentine
Rob Turrentine said:
What does each part of the piecewise represent?

Why does it have to represent anything? This appears to be a problem intended to give you some facility with the mechanics of the sorts of calculations one does in QM.
 
Okay, I think I'm getting it more, thank you! So when normalizing, do I follow this equation

$$\int_{a}^{b} \psi \psi^* dx$$

and set my piecewise accordingly? It appears that the complex conjugate causes $$\bigg(e^{\frac{ip_0x}{\hbar}}\bigg)^2 = \bigg(e^{\frac{ip_0x}{\hbar}}\bigg)\bigg(e^{\frac{ip_0x}{\hbar}}\bigg)^* = e^0 = 1$$
So I would end up at

\begin{equation}
\int_{a}^{b} \psi(x,0)^2dx =\begin{cases}
\int_{0}^{1} (x^4)dx & 0 \leq x < 1,\\
\int_{1}^{3} (x^4 - 8x^3d + 20x^2 +4)dx & 1 \leq x < 3,\\
\int_{3}^{4} (x^4 - 16x^3 +96x^2 - 256x + 256)dx & 3 \leq x \leq 4, \\
0 & \text{otherwise}.
\end{cases}
\end{equation}

Or am I going down the wrong road?

Once again, thank you for any help!
 
You probably need to realize a fact that any function (some continuity limitations applied) may be a solution of time-dependent shrodinger equation at t=0. I.e. shredinger equation defines how psi function evolves in time, but at particular time t=0 all the values of pis in space may be just set arbitrarily.
 
Rob Turrentine said:
So I would end up at

\begin{equation}
\int_{a}^{b} \psi(x,0)^2dx =\begin{cases}
\int_{0}^{1} (x^4)dx & 0 \leq x < 1,\\
\int_{1}^{3} (x^4 - 8x^3d + 20x^2 +4)dx & 1 \leq x < 3,\\
\int_{3}^{4} (x^4 - 16x^3 +96x^2 - 256x + 256)dx & 3 \leq x \leq 4, \\
0 & \text{otherwise}.
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
You mean the right thing, but you cannot write it like this.
The left side depends on a and b only, the right side depends on x (case bracket) but then has constant values within the x ranges.
If you directly take the integral from ##-\infty## to ##+\infty## you can just sum the integrals.
 
By summing them, I got 70.1 plus a constant from the 0.

Is the equation now set up to find <X> and <P> as functions of time?
 
Rob Turrentine said:
plus a constant from the 0.
The primitive function of 0 is a constant. This does not mean that a definite integral of 0 is non-zero.
 
  • #10
So I just end up at 70.1 without a constant? So by multiplying this times the equation is it normalized?

Also, after this am I ready to find <X> and <P> as functions of time?
 
  • #11
Rob Turrentine said:
So I just end up at 70.1 without a constant?
Yes.
Rob Turrentine said:
So by multiplying this times the equation is it normalized?
Multiplication is not the right operation here.

The integral is now 70.1. You want the integral to become 1. How do you have to change ψ?
Rob Turrentine said:
Also, after this am I ready to find <X> and <P> as functions of time?
I would start with the expectation values at t=0.
 
  • #12
I realized I miscalculated on my integral, and the actual answer is ##\frac{92}{15} - 6.1333.## So my normalized equation would now be
$$ \psi(x,0) = \sqrt{\frac{1}{6.1333}} \cdot e^{ip_ox/\hbar} \cdot
\begin{cases}
x^2 & 0 \leq x < 1,\\
-x^2 + 4x -2 & 1 \leq x < 3,\\
x^2 -8x +16 & 3 \leq x \leq 4, \\
0 & \text{otherwise}.
\end{cases}$$

Now, to turn ##\psi## into a function of time, my book says to multiply it by ##e^{\frac{-iEt}{\hbar}}##. So we would get
$$ \psi(x,t) = \sqrt{\frac{1}{6.1333}} e^{-iEt/\hbar} \cdot e^{ip_ox/\hbar} \cdot
\begin{cases}
x^2 & 0 \leq x < 1,\\
-x^2 + 4x -2 & 1 \leq x < 3,\\
x^2 -8x +16 & 3 \leq x \leq 4, \\
0 & \text{otherwise}.
\end{cases}$$

Finding the expectation values of X and P requires the formula
$$<X> = \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \psi^*(x,t) X \psi(x,t)dx$$

However, when I use this with ##\psi## I get an unbelievably long integral.
 
  • #13
Whoops forgot to add my question...

For the equation ##e^{-iEt/\hbar}## is it best to change E to another variable or keep it as is?
 
  • #14
That time evolution is not correct. Each energy eigenstate evolves separately with its own phase contribution. You need to write your initial state as a linear combination of energy eigenstates and evolve them separately. However, you should not really need the exact time evolution of the state to find the time evolution of the expectation values.
 
  • #15
I've seen the equation ##<X> = <\psi|X|\psi>##, but wouldn't I need to have ##\psi## as a function of time to find ##<X>## as a function of time? ##\psi(x,t)## instead of ##\psi(x,0)##?

Going off of that, I have to find both ##<X>## and ##\dot{<X>}##.
Ehrenfest's theorem is ##\frac{d}{dt}<X> = (-i\hbar)[X,H]##

Would this equation work? I'm not sure if the expectation value of ##X## in that is just ##\dot{X}##, so I would need a new way to find ##<X>## instead of ##\dot{<X>}##
 
  • #16
No. Starting from the general time evolution you should be able to relate the time evolution of the expectation values to their values at t=0.

Also, in LaTeX < and > are relations and are typeset as such. The correct braket delimiters are \langle (##\langle##) and \rangle (##\rangle##).
 
  • #17
Ah okay, thank you for the tip!

Okay, I'm still a little bit confused. So you're saying that I can use the equation ##\langle{X}\rangle = \langle\psi|X|\psi\rangle## to find X at t=0, but somehow relate the time evolution expectation values to those at t=0?
 
  • #18
It is a free particle - what do you know about the evolution of its momentum?
Start there, then work on <X(t)> later.
 
  • #19
Since there's no force, it should just be ##p_o##, right?
 
  • #20
You should have a formula to calculate it.
 
  • #21
Let me put it this way: For any operator ##A##, the expectation value at a time ##t## is given by
$$
\langle A\rangle(t) = \langle \psi(t)| A | \psi(t)\rangle,
$$
where ##|\psi(t)\rangle## is the state at time ##t##, which follows the Schrödinger equation (all of this in the Schrödinger picture). What is the time derivative of this expectation value?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
2K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K