Why do we use normalization twice in quantum mechanics?

  • Thread starter Thread starter fuserofworlds
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Wavefunction
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:
Not an expert in QM. AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is quite different from the classical wave equation. The former is an equation for the dynamics of the state of a (quantum?) system, the latter is an equation for the dynamics of a (classical) degree of freedom. As a matter of fact, Schrödinger's equation is first order in time derivatives, while the classical wave equation is second order. But, AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is a wave equation; only its interpretation makes it non-classical...
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
Is it possible, and fruitful, to use certain conceptual and technical tools from effective field theory (coarse-graining/integrating-out, power-counting, matching, RG) to think about the relationship between the fundamental (quantum) and the emergent (classical), both to account for the quasi-autonomy of the classical level and to quantify residual quantum corrections? By “emergent,” I mean the following: after integrating out fast/irrelevant quantum degrees of freedom (high-energy modes...
Back
Top