Why do we use normalization twice in quantum mechanics?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter fuserofworlds
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Wavefunction
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of normalization in quantum mechanics, specifically in the context of the infinite square well. Participants explore the necessity and implications of normalizing wavefunctions and the coefficients associated with stationary states.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses confusion about the normalization process, questioning why normalization is applied to find the constant A if the coefficients c_n already represent probabilities.
  • Another participant asserts that normalization is only performed once to determine A, and that c_n subsequently provides the probabilities without further normalization.
  • A further contribution emphasizes the convenience of working with an orthonormal basis set, stating that each basis function must be normalized to satisfy the orthonormality condition.
  • This participant also notes that while normalization of the basis set simplifies calculations, the normalization of the total wavefunction is a fundamental requirement in quantum mechanics.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the necessity of normalization steps, with differing views on whether the normalization of A and the probabilities represented by c_n are distinct processes or if they overlap in purpose.

Contextual Notes

Some assumptions regarding the nature of wavefunctions (real vs. complex) are mentioned, but not fully explored. The discussion also highlights the mathematical convenience of normalization without establishing it as an absolute requirement.

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:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
3K
  • · Replies 128 ·
5
Replies
128
Views
15K