Why do we use normalization twice in quantum mechanics?

  • Thread starter Thread starter fuserofworlds
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Wavefunction
Click For Summary
In quantum mechanics, normalization is essential for ensuring that the total probability of finding a particle is unity. The constant A in the time-independent solution Asin(kx) is determined through normalization, which ensures that the wavefunction is properly scaled. When constructing the complete time-dependent solution, each stationary state is represented by a coefficient c_n, where |c_n|^2 indicates the probability of observing that state. Although it may seem like normalization occurs twice, the normalization of the basis set simplifies calculations, while the normalization of the total wavefunction is a fundamental requirement of quantum mechanics. Thus, both normalization processes serve distinct purposes within the framework of quantum theory.
fuserofworlds
Messages
12
Reaction score
0
I was reviewing the infinite square well, using D.J. Griffiths, and came across this small point of confusion. The time-independent solution is shown to be Asin(kx), where the constant A is determined by normalization. Then, in assembling the complete (time dependent) solution, he writes that the most general solution "is a linear combination of stationary states", where each stationary state is assigned a coefficient c_n. Griffiths then explains that |c_n|^2 is the probability of observing that state, and "the sum of all these probabilities should be 1."

My confusion is this: if c_n is the probability of observing each state, why do we use the normalization requirement to find A? Isn't this in effect normalizing twice?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You only normalize once to find A. Once that's done, c_n gives the probability without any further normalization.
 
Thank you, that makes sense!
 
fuserofworlds said:
I was reviewing the infinite square well, using D.J. Griffiths, and came across this small point of confusion. The time-independent solution is shown to be Asin(kx), where the constant A is determined by normalization. Then, in assembling the complete (time dependent) solution, he writes that the most general solution "is a linear combination of stationary states", where each stationary state is assigned a coefficient c_n. Griffiths then explains that |c_n|^2 is the probability of observing that state, and "the sum of all these probabilities should be 1."

My confusion is this: if c_n is the probability of observing each state, why do we use the normalization requirement to find A? Isn't this in effect normalizing twice?

It is quiet convenient to work in orthonormal set of basis. Therefore you must normalize each element of basis set such that
<br /> \int_0^l f_n(x)f_m(x)\,dx = \delta_{n m}<br />
where f_n(x) = A_n\sin(n\pi x/l).

The total statefunction (wavefunction) can be written as a linear combination of the elements of basis set.
<br /> \Psi(x,t) = \sum_{n=0}^\infty c_n(t)f_n(x).<br />
Now quantum mechanics says the total probability probability should always be unity, so
<br /> \int_0^l \Psi(x,t)\Psi(x,t)\,dx = 1,<br />
which implies
<br /> \sum_{n=0}^\infty c_n^2 = 1.<br />
(note: I have assumed real valued wave functions. For complex case, replace with complex conjugate wherever necessary)
[EDIT:]
Normalisation of the basis set just makes the mathematics easy (it is not a necessary requirement), but the normalisation of total statefunction is a constraint of quantum mechanics)
 
Last edited:
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 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
941
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
5K