|
rlm@0
|
1 #+TITLE: Bugs in quantum mechanics
|
|
rlm@0
|
2 #+AUTHOR: Dylan Holmes
|
|
rlm@0
|
3 #+DESCRIPTION: I explain hermitian operators and use them to solve a confusing problem in quantum mechanics.
|
|
rlm@0
|
4 #+KEYWORDS: quantum mechanics, self-adjoint, hermitian, square well, momentum
|
|
rlm@0
|
5 #+SETUPFILE: ../../aurellem/org/setup.org
|
|
rlm@0
|
6 #+INCLUDE: ../../aurellem/org/level-0.org
|
|
rlm@0
|
7
|
|
rlm@0
|
8
|
|
rlm@0
|
9
|
|
rlm@0
|
10 #Bugs in Quantum Mechanics
|
|
rlm@0
|
11 #Bugs in the Quantum-Mechanical Momentum Operator
|
|
rlm@0
|
12
|
|
rlm@0
|
13
|
|
rlm@0
|
14 I studied quantum mechanics the same way I study most subjects\mdash{}
|
|
rlm@0
|
15 by collecting (and squashing) bugs in my understanding. One of these
|
|
rlm@0
|
16 bugs persisted throughout two semesters of
|
|
rlm@0
|
17 quantum mechanics coursework until I finally found
|
|
rlm@0
|
18 the paper
|
|
rlm@0
|
19 [[http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0103153][/Self-adjoint extensions of operators and the teaching of quantum
|
|
rlm@0
|
20 mechanics/]], which helped me stamp out the bug entirely. I decided to
|
|
rlm@0
|
21 write an article about the problem and its solution for a number of reasons:
|
|
rlm@0
|
22
|
|
rlm@0
|
23 - Although the paper was not unreasonably dense, it was written for
|
|
rlm@0
|
24 teachers. I wanted to write an article for students.
|
|
rlm@0
|
25 - I wanted to popularize the problem and its solution because other
|
|
rlm@0
|
26 explanations are currently too hard to find. (Even Shankar's
|
|
rlm@0
|
27 excellent [[http://books.google.com/books/about/Principles_of_quantum_mechanics.html?id=2zypV5EbKuIC][textbook]] doesn't mention it, as far as I know.)
|
|
rlm@0
|
28 - Attempting an explanation is my way of making
|
|
rlm@0
|
29 sure that the bug is /really/ gone.
|
|
rlm@0
|
30 # entirely eradicated.
|
|
rlm@0
|
31
|
|
rlm@0
|
32 * COMMENT
|
|
rlm@0
|
33 I recommend the
|
|
rlm@0
|
34 paper not only for students who are learning
|
|
rlm@0
|
35 quantum mechanics, but especially for teachers interested in debugging
|
|
rlm@0
|
36 them.
|
|
rlm@0
|
37
|
|
rlm@0
|
38 * COMMENT
|
|
rlm@0
|
39 On my first exam in quantum mechanics, my professor asked us to
|
|
rlm@0
|
40 describe how certain measurements would affect a particle in a
|
|
rlm@0
|
41 box. Many of these measurement questions required routine application
|
|
rlm@0
|
42 of skills we had recently learned\mdash{}first, you recall (or
|
|
rlm@0
|
43 calculate) the eigenstates of the quantity
|
|
rlm@0
|
44 to be measured; second, you write the given state as a linear
|
|
rlm@0
|
45 sum of these eigenstates\mdash{} the coefficients on each term give
|
|
rlm@0
|
46 the probability amplitude.
|
|
rlm@0
|
47
|
|
rlm@0
|
48
|
|
rlm@0
|
49 * Two methods of calculation that give different results.
|
|
rlm@0
|
50
|
|
rlm@0
|
51 In the infinitely deep well, there is a particle in the the
|
|
rlm@0
|
52 normalized state
|
|
rlm@0
|
53
|
|
rlm@0
|
54 \(\psi(x) = \begin{cases}A\; x(x-a)&\text{for }0\lt{}x\lt{}a;\\0,&\text{for }x\lt{}0\text{ or }x>a.\end{cases}\)
|
|
rlm@0
|
55
|
|
rlm@0
|
56 This is apparently a perfectly respectable state: it is normalized ($A$ is a
|
|
rlm@0
|
57 normalization constant), it is zero
|
|
rlm@0
|
58 everywhere outside of the well, and it is moreover continuous.
|
|
rlm@0
|
59
|
|
rlm@0
|
60 Even so, we will find a problem if we attempt to calculate the average
|
|
rlm@0
|
61 energy-squared of this state (that is, the quantity \(\langle \psi | H^2 | \psi \rangle\)).
|
|
rlm@0
|
62
|
|
rlm@0
|
63 ** First method
|
|
rlm@0
|
64
|
|
rlm@0
|
65 For short, define a new variable[fn:1] \(|\bar \psi\rangle \equiv
|
|
rlm@0
|
66 H|\psi\rangle\). We can express the state $|\bar\psi\rangle$ as a
|
|
rlm@0
|
67 function of $x$ because we know how to express $H$ and $\psi$ in terms
|
|
rlm@0
|
68 of $x$: $H$ is the differential operator $\frac{-\hbar^2}{2m}\frac{d^2}{dx^2}$, and
|
|
rlm@0
|
69 $\psi(x)$ is the function defined above. So, we get \(\quad\bar\psi(x) = \frac{-A\hbar^2}{m}\). For future reference, observe that $\bar\psi(x)$
|
|
rlm@0
|
70 is constant.
|
|
rlm@0
|
71
|
|
rlm@0
|
72 Having introduced $|\bar\psi\rangle$, we can calculate the average energy-squared of $|\psi\rangle$ in the
|
|
rlm@0
|
73 following way.
|
|
rlm@0
|
74
|
|
rlm@0
|
75 \(\begin{eqnarray}
|
|
rlm@0
|
76 \langle \psi | H^2 |\psi\rangle &=& \langle \psi H^\dagger | H
|
|
rlm@0
|
77 \psi\rangle\\
|
|
rlm@0
|
78 &=& \langle \psi H | H\psi \rangle\\
|
|
rlm@0
|
79 &=& \langle \bar\psi | \bar\psi \rangle\\
|
|
rlm@0
|
80 &=& \int_0^a \left(\frac{A\hbar^2}{m}\right)^2\;dx\\
|
|
rlm@0
|
81 &=& \frac{A^2\hbar^4 a}{m^2}\\
|
|
rlm@0
|
82 \end{eqnarray}\)
|
|
rlm@0
|
83
|
|
rlm@0
|
84 For future reference, observe that this value is nonzero
|
|
rlm@0
|
85 (which makes sense).
|
|
rlm@0
|
86
|
|
rlm@0
|
87 ** Second method
|
|
rlm@0
|
88 We can also calculate the average energy-squared of $|\psi\rangle$ in the
|
|
rlm@0
|
89 following way.
|
|
rlm@0
|
90
|
|
rlm@0
|
91 \begin{eqnarray}
|
|
rlm@0
|
92 \langle \psi | H^2 |\psi\rangle &=& \langle \psi | H\,H \psi \rangle\\
|
|
rlm@0
|
93 &=& \langle \psi |H \bar\psi \rangle\\
|
|
rlm@0
|
94 &=&\int_0^a Ax(x-a)
|
|
rlm@0
|
95 \left(\frac{-\hbar^2}{2m}\frac{d^2}{dx^2}\right)\frac{-A\hbar^2}{m}\;dx\\
|
|
rlm@0
|
96 &=& 0\quad (!)\\
|
|
rlm@0
|
97 \end{eqnarray}
|
|
rlm@0
|
98
|
|
rlm@0
|
99 The second-to-last term must be zero because the second derivative
|
|
rlm@0
|
100 of a constant \(\left(\frac{-A\hbar^2}{m}\right)\) is zero.
|
|
rlm@0
|
101
|
|
rlm@0
|
102 * What is the problem?
|
|
rlm@0
|
103
|
|
rlm@0
|
104 To recap: We used two different methods to calculate the average
|
|
rlm@0
|
105 energy-squared of a state $|\psi\rangle$. For the first method, we
|
|
rlm@0
|
106 used the fact that $H$ is a hermitian operator, replacing \(\langle
|
|
rlm@0
|
107 \psi H^\dagger | H \psi\rangle\) with \(\langle \psi H | H
|
|
rlm@0
|
108 \psi\rangle\). Using this substitution rule, we calculated the answer.
|
|
rlm@0
|
109
|
|
rlm@0
|
110 For the second method, we didn't use the fact that $H$ was hermitian;
|
|
rlm@0
|
111 instead, we used the fact that we know how to represent $H$ and $\psi$
|
|
rlm@0
|
112 as functions of $x$: $H$ is a differential operator
|
|
rlm@0
|
113 \(\frac{-\hbar^2}{2m}\frac{d^2}{dx^2}\) and $\psi$ is a quadratic
|
|
rlm@0
|
114 function of $x$. By applying $H$ to $\psi$, we took several
|
|
rlm@0
|
115 derivatives and arrived at our answer.
|
|
rlm@0
|
116
|
|
rlm@0
|
117 These two methods gave different results. In the following sections,
|
|
rlm@0
|
118 I'll describe and analyze the source of this difference.
|
|
rlm@0
|
119
|
|
rlm@0
|
120 ** Physical operators only act on physical wavefunctions
|
|
rlm@0
|
121 :PROPERTIES:
|
|
rlm@0
|
122 :ORDERED: t
|
|
rlm@0
|
123 :END:
|
|
rlm@0
|
124 #In quantum mechanics, an operator is a function that takes in a
|
|
rlm@0
|
125 #physical state and produces another physical state as ouput. Some
|
|
rlm@0
|
126 #operators correspond to physical quantities such as energy,
|
|
rlm@0
|
127 #momentum, or position; the mathematical properties of these operators correspond to
|
|
rlm@0
|
128 #physical properties of the system.
|
|
rlm@0
|
129
|
|
rlm@0
|
130 #Eigenstates are an example of this correspondence: an
|
|
rlm@0
|
131
|
|
rlm@0
|
132 Physical states are represented as wavefunctions in quantum
|
|
rlm@0
|
133 mechanics. Just as we disallow certain physically nonsensical states
|
|
rlm@0
|
134 in classical mechanics (for example, we consider it to be nonphysical
|
|
rlm@0
|
135 for an object to spontaneously disappear from one place and reappear
|
|
rlm@0
|
136 in another), we also disallow certain wavefunctions in quantum
|
|
rlm@0
|
137 mechanics.
|
|
rlm@0
|
138
|
|
rlm@0
|
139 For example, since wavefunctions are supposed to correspond to
|
|
rlm@0
|
140 probability amplitudes, we require wavefunctions to be normalized
|
|
rlm@0
|
141 \((\langle \psi |\psi \rangle = 1)\). Generally, we disallow
|
|
rlm@0
|
142 wavefunctions that do not satisfy this property (although there are
|
|
rlm@0
|
143 some exceptions[fn:2]).
|
|
rlm@0
|
144
|
|
rlm@0
|
145 As another example, we generally expect probability to vary smoothly\mdash{}if
|
|
rlm@0
|
146 a particle is very likely or very unlikely to be found at a particular
|
|
rlm@0
|
147 location, it should also be somewhat likely or somewhat unlikely to be
|
|
rlm@0
|
148 found /near/ that location. In more precise terms, we expect that for
|
|
rlm@0
|
149 physically meaningful wavefunctions, the probability
|
|
rlm@0
|
150 \(\text{Pr}(x)=\int^x \psi^*\psi\) should be a continuous function of
|
|
rlm@0
|
151 $x$ and, again, we disallow wavefunctions that do not satisfy this
|
|
rlm@0
|
152 property because we consider them to be physically nonsensical.
|
|
rlm@0
|
153
|
|
rlm@0
|
154 So, physical wavefunctions must satisfy certain properties
|
|
rlm@0
|
155 like the two just described. Wavefunctions that do not satisfy these properties are
|
|
rlm@0
|
156 rejected for being physically nonsensical: even though we can perform
|
|
rlm@0
|
157 calculations with them, the mathematical results we obtain do not mean
|
|
rlm@0
|
158 anything physically.
|
|
rlm@0
|
159
|
|
rlm@0
|
160 Now, in quantum mechanics, an *operator* is a function that converts
|
|
rlm@0
|
161 states into other states. Some operators correspond to
|
|
rlm@0
|
162 physical quantities such as energy, momentum, or position, and as a
|
|
rlm@0
|
163 result, the mathematical properties of these operators correspond to
|
|
rlm@0
|
164 physical properties of the system. Physical operators are furthermore
|
|
rlm@0
|
165 subject to the following rule: they are only allowed to operate on
|
|
rlm@0
|
166 #physical wavefunctions, and they are only allowed to produce
|
|
rlm@0
|
167 #physical wavefunctions[fn:why].
|
|
rlm@0
|
168 the wavefunctions we have deemed physical, and they only produce physical wavefunctions[fn::
|
|
rlm@0
|
169
|
|
rlm@0
|
170 If you require a hermitian operator to have physical
|
|
rlm@0
|
171 eigenstates, you get a very strong result: you guarantee that the
|
|
rlm@0
|
172 operator will convert /every/ physical wavefunction into another
|
|
rlm@0
|
173 physical wavefunction:
|
|
rlm@0
|
174
|
|
rlm@0
|
175 For any linear operator $\Omega$, the eigenvalue equation is
|
|
rlm@0
|
176 \(\Omega|\omega\rangle = \omega |\omega\rangle\). Notice that if an
|
|
rlm@0
|
177 eigenstate $|\omega\rangle$ is a physical wavefunction, the
|
|
rlm@0
|
178 eigenvalue equation equation forces $\Omega|\omega\rangle$ to be a
|
|
rlm@0
|
179 physical wavefunction as well. To elaborate, if the eigenstates of
|
|
rlm@0
|
180 $\Omega$ are physical functions, then $\Omega$ is guaranteed to
|
|
rlm@0
|
181 convert them into other physical functions. Even more is true if the
|
|
rlm@0
|
182 operator $\Omega$ is also hermitian: there is a theorem which states
|
|
rlm@0
|
183 that \ldquo{}If \Omega is hermitian, then every physical wavefunction
|
|
rlm@0
|
184 can be written as a weighted sum of eigenstates of \Omega.\rdquo{} This
|
|
rlm@0
|
185 theorem implies that /if $\Omega$ is hermitian/, and /if the eigenstates
|
|
rlm@0
|
186 of \Omega are physically allowed/, then \Omega is guaranteed to
|
|
rlm@0
|
187 convert every physically allowed wavefunction into another physically
|
|
rlm@0
|
188 allowed wavefunction.].
|
|
rlm@0
|
189
|
|
rlm@0
|
190 In fact, this rule for physical operators is the source of our
|
|
rlm@0
|
191 problem, as we unknowingly violated it when applying our second
|
|
rlm@0
|
192 method!
|
|
rlm@0
|
193
|
|
rlm@0
|
194 ** The violation
|
|
rlm@0
|
195
|
|
rlm@0
|
196 I'll start explaining this violation by being more specific about the
|
|
rlm@0
|
197 infinitely deep well potential. We have said already that physicists
|
|
rlm@0
|
198 require wavefunctions to satisfy certain properties in order to be
|
|
rlm@0
|
199 deemed \ldquo{}physical\rdquo{}. To be specific, wavefunctions in the
|
|
rlm@0
|
200 infinitely deep well
|
|
rlm@0
|
201 - Must be *normalizable*, because they correspond to
|
|
rlm@0
|
202 probability amplitudes.
|
|
rlm@0
|
203 - Must have *smoothly-varying probability*, because if a particle is very
|
|
rlm@0
|
204 likely to be at a location, it ought to be likely to be /near/
|
|
rlm@0
|
205 it as well.
|
|
rlm@0
|
206 - Must *not exist outside the well*, because it
|
|
rlm@0
|
207 would take an infinite amount of energy to do so.
|
|
rlm@0
|
208
|
|
rlm@0
|
209 Additionally, by combining the second and third conditions, some
|
|
rlm@0
|
210 physicists reason that wavefunctions in the infinitely deep well
|
|
rlm@0
|
211
|
|
rlm@0
|
212 - Must *become zero* towards the edges of the well.
|
|
rlm@0
|
213
|
|
rlm@0
|
214
|
|
rlm@0
|
215
|
|
rlm@0
|
216
|
|
rlm@0
|
217 You'll remember we had
|
|
rlm@0
|
218
|
|
rlm@0
|
219 \(
|
|
rlm@0
|
220 \begin{eqnarray}
|
|
rlm@0
|
221 \psi(x) &=& A\;x(x-a)\\
|
|
rlm@0
|
222 \bar\psi(x)&=& \frac{-A\hbar^2}{m}\\
|
|
rlm@0
|
223 &&\text{for }0\lt{}x\lt{}a\\
|
|
rlm@0
|
224 \end{eqnarray}
|
|
rlm@0
|
225 \)
|
|
rlm@0
|
226
|
|
rlm@0
|
227 In our second method, we wrote
|
|
rlm@0
|
228
|
|
rlm@0
|
229
|
|
rlm@0
|
230 \(\begin{eqnarray}
|
|
rlm@0
|
231 \langle \psi | H^2 |\psi\rangle &=& \langle \psi | H\,H \psi \rangle\\
|
|
rlm@0
|
232 &=& \langle \psi |H \bar\psi \rangle\\
|
|
rlm@0
|
233 & \vdots&\\
|
|
rlm@0
|
234 &=& 0\\
|
|
rlm@0
|
235 \end{eqnarray}\)
|
|
rlm@0
|
236
|
|
rlm@0
|
237 However, there are two issues here. First, we were not allowed to operate with $H$ on the wavefunction
|
|
rlm@0
|
238 $|\bar \psi\rangle$, because $H$ is a physical operator and $|\bar
|
|
rlm@0
|
239 \psi\rangle$ is a nonphysical state: in the infinite square well,
|
|
rlm@0
|
240 physical wavefunctions must approach zero at the edges of the well,
|
|
rlm@0
|
241 which the constant function $|\bar\psi\rangle$ does not do. By
|
|
rlm@0
|
242 feeding $H$ a nonphysical wavefunction, we obtained nonsensical
|
|
rlm@0
|
243 results.
|
|
rlm@0
|
244
|
|
rlm@0
|
245 Second, we claimed that $H$ was a physical operator\mdash{}that $H$
|
|
rlm@0
|
246 was hermitian. According to the rule, this means $H$ must convert physical states into other
|
|
rlm@0
|
247 physical states. But $H$ converts the physical state $|\psi\rangle$
|
|
rlm@0
|
248 into the nonphysical state $|\bar\psi\rangle = H|\psi\rangle$ is not. Because $H$ converts some
|
|
rlm@0
|
249 physical states into nonphysical states, it cannot be a hermitian operator.
|
|
rlm@0
|
250
|
|
rlm@0
|
251 ** Boundary conditions affect hermiticity
|
|
rlm@0
|
252 We have now discovered a flaw: when applied to the state
|
|
rlm@0
|
253 $|\psi\rangle$, the second method violates the rule that physical
|
|
rlm@0
|
254 operators must only take in physical states and must only produce
|
|
rlm@0
|
255 physical states. This suggests that the problem was with the state
|
|
rlm@0
|
256 $|\bar\psi\rangle$ that we wrongly fed into $H$. However, the problem
|
|
rlm@0
|
257 is more serious still: the state $|\psi\rangle
|
|
rlm@0
|
258
|
|
rlm@0
|
259 ** COMMENT Re-examining physical constraints
|
|
rlm@0
|
260
|
|
rlm@0
|
261 We have now discovered a flaw: when applied to the state
|
|
rlm@0
|
262 $|\psi\rangle$, the second method violates the rule that physical
|
|
rlm@0
|
263 operators must only take in physical states and must only produce
|
|
rlm@0
|
264 physical states. Let's examine the problem more closely.
|
|
rlm@0
|
265
|
|
rlm@0
|
266 We have said already that physicists require wavefunctions to satisfy
|
|
rlm@0
|
267 certain properties in order to be deemed \ldquo{}physical\rdquo{}. To
|
|
rlm@0
|
268 be specific, wavefunctions in the infinitely deep well
|
|
rlm@0
|
269 - Must be *normalizable*, because they correspond to
|
|
rlm@0
|
270 probability amplitudes.
|
|
rlm@0
|
271 - Must have *smoothly-varying probability*, because if a particle is very
|
|
rlm@0
|
272 likely to be at a location, it ought to be likely to be /near/
|
|
rlm@0
|
273 it as well.
|
|
rlm@0
|
274 - Must *not exist outside the well*, because it
|
|
rlm@0
|
275 would take an infinite amount of energy to do so.
|
|
rlm@0
|
276
|
|
rlm@0
|
277 We now have discovered an important flaw in the second method: when
|
|
rlm@0
|
278 applied to the state $|\bar\psi\rangle$, the second method violates
|
|
rlm@0
|
279 the rule that physical operators must only take in
|
|
rlm@0
|
280 physical states and must only produce physical states. The problem is
|
|
rlm@0
|
281 even more serious, however
|
|
rlm@0
|
282
|
|
rlm@0
|
283
|
|
rlm@0
|
284
|
|
rlm@0
|
285 [fn:1] I'm defining a new variable just to make certain expressions
|
|
rlm@0
|
286 look shorter; this cannot affect the content of the answer we'll
|
|
rlm@0
|
287 get.
|
|
rlm@0
|
288
|
|
rlm@0
|
289 [fn:2] For example, in vaccuum (i.e., when the potential of the
|
|
rlm@0
|
290 physical system is $V(x)=0$ throughout all space), the momentum
|
|
rlm@0
|
291 eigenstates are not normalizable\mdash{}the relevant integral blows
|
|
rlm@0
|
292 up to infinity instead of converging to a number. Physicists modify
|
|
rlm@0
|
293 the definition of normalization slightly so that
|
|
rlm@0
|
294 \ldquo{}delta-normalizable \rdquo{} functions like these are included
|
|
rlm@0
|
295 among the physical wavefunctions.
|
|
rlm@0
|
296
|
|
rlm@0
|
297
|
|
rlm@0
|
298
|
|
rlm@0
|
299 * COMMENT: What I thought I knew
|
|
rlm@0
|
300
|
|
rlm@0
|
301 The following is a list of things I thought were true of quantum
|
|
rlm@0
|
302 mechanics; the catch is that the list contradicts itself.
|
|
rlm@0
|
303
|
|
rlm@0
|
304 1. For any hermitian operator: Eigenstates with different eigenvalues are orthogonal.
|
|
rlm@0
|
305 2. For any hermitian operator: Any physically allowed state can be
|
|
rlm@0
|
306 written as a linear sum of eigenstates of the operator.
|
|
rlm@0
|
307 3. The momentum operator and energy operator are hermitian, because
|
|
rlm@0
|
308 momentum and energy are measureable quantities.
|
|
rlm@0
|
309 4. In the vacuum potential, the momentum and energy operators have these eigenstates:
|
|
rlm@0
|
310 - the momentum operator has an eigenstate
|
|
rlm@0
|
311 \(p(x)=\exp{(ipx/\hbar)}\) for each value of $p$.
|
|
rlm@0
|
312 - the energy operator has an eigenstate \(|E\rangle =
|
|
rlm@0
|
313 \alpha|p\rangle + \beta|-p\rangle\) for any \(\alpha,\beta\) and
|
|
rlm@0
|
314 the particular choice of momentum $p=\sqrt{2mE}$.
|
|
rlm@0
|
315 5. In the infinitely deep potential well, the momentum and energy
|
|
rlm@0
|
316 operators have these eigenstates:
|
|
rlm@0
|
317 - The momentum eigenstates and energy eigenstates have the same form
|
|
rlm@0
|
318 as in the vacuum potential: $p(x) =
|
|
rlm@0
|
319 \exp{(ipx/\hbar)}$ and $|E\rangle = \alpha|p\rangle + \beta|-p\rangle$.
|
|
rlm@0
|
320 - Even so, because of the boundary conditions on the
|
|
rlm@0
|
321 well, we must make the following modifications:
|
|
rlm@0
|
322 + Physically realistic states must be impossible to find outside the well. (Only a state of infinite
|
|
rlm@0
|
323 energy could exist outside the well, and infinite energy is not
|
|
rlm@0
|
324 realistic.) This requirement means, for example, that momentum
|
|
rlm@0
|
325 eigenstates in the infinitely deep well must be
|
|
rlm@0
|
326 \(p(x)
|
|
rlm@0
|
327 = \begin{cases}\exp{(ipx/\hbar)},& \text{for }0\lt{}x\lt{}a;
|
|
rlm@0
|
328 \\0, & \text{for }x<0\text{ or }x>a. \\ \end{cases}\)
|
|
rlm@0
|
329 + Physically realistic states must vary smoothly throughout
|
|
rlm@0
|
330 space. This means that if a particle in some state is very unlikely to be
|
|
rlm@0
|
331 /at/ a particular location, it is also very unlikely be /near/
|
|
rlm@0
|
332 that location. Combining this requirement with the above
|
|
rlm@0
|
333 requirement, we find that the momentum operator no longer has
|
|
rlm@0
|
334 an eigenstate for each value of $p$; instead, only values of
|
|
rlm@0
|
335 $p$ that are integer multiples of $\pi \hbar/a$ are physically
|
|
rlm@0
|
336 realistic. Similarly, the energy operator no longer has an
|
|
rlm@0
|
337 eigenstate for each value of $E$; instead, the only energy
|
|
rlm@0
|
338 eigenstates in the infinitely deep well
|
|
rlm@0
|
339 are $E_n(x)=\sin(n\pi x/ a)$ for positive integers $n$.
|
|
rlm@0
|
340
|
|
rlm@0
|
341 * COMMENT:
|
|
rlm@0
|
342
|
|
rlm@0
|
343 ** Eigenstates with different eigenvalues are orthogonal
|
|
rlm@0
|
344
|
|
rlm@0
|
345 #+begin_quote
|
|
rlm@0
|
346 *Theorem:* Eigenstates with different eigenvalues are orthogonal.
|
|
rlm@0
|
347 #+end_quote
|
|
rlm@0
|
348
|
|
rlm@0
|
349 ** COMMENT :
|
|
rlm@0
|
350 I can prove this: if $\Lambda$ is any linear operator, suppose $|a\rangle$
|
|
rlm@0
|
351 and $|b\rangle$ are eigenstates of $\Lambda$. This means that
|
|
rlm@0
|
352
|
|
rlm@0
|
353
|
|
rlm@0
|
354 \(
|
|
rlm@0
|
355 \begin{eqnarray}
|
|
rlm@0
|
356 \Lambda |a\rangle&=& a|a\rangle,\\
|
|
rlm@0
|
357 \Lambda|b\rangle&=& b|b\rangle.\\
|
|
rlm@0
|
358 \end{eqnarray}
|
|
rlm@0
|
359 \)
|
|
rlm@0
|
360
|
|
rlm@0
|
361 If we take the difference of these eigenstates, we find that
|
|
rlm@0
|
362
|
|
rlm@0
|
363 \(
|
|
rlm@0
|
364 \begin{eqnarray}
|
|
rlm@0
|
365 \Lambda\;\left(|a\rangle-|b\rangle\right) &=& \Lambda |a\rangle - \Lambda |b\rangle
|
|
rlm@0
|
366 \qquad \text{(because $\Lambda$ is linear.)}\\
|
|
rlm@0
|
367 &=& a|a\rangle - b|b\rangle\qquad\text{(because $|a\rangle$ and
|
|
rlm@0
|
368 $|b\rangle$ are eigenstates of $\Lambda$)}
|
|
rlm@0
|
369 \end{eqnarray}\)
|
|
rlm@0
|
370
|
|
rlm@0
|
371
|
|
rlm@0
|
372 which means that $a\neq b$.
|
|
rlm@0
|
373
|
|
rlm@0
|
374 ** Eigenvectors of hermitian operators span the space of solutions
|
|
rlm@0
|
375
|
|
rlm@0
|
376 #+begin_quote
|
|
rlm@0
|
377 *Theorem:* If $\Omega$ is a hermitian operator, then every physically
|
|
rlm@0
|
378 allowed state can be written as a linear sum of eigenstates of
|
|
rlm@0
|
379 $\Omega$.
|
|
rlm@0
|
380 #+end_quote
|
|
rlm@0
|
381
|
|
rlm@0
|
382
|
|
rlm@0
|
383
|
|
rlm@0
|
384 ** Momentum and energy are hermitian operators
|
|
rlm@0
|
385 This ought to be true because hermitian operators correspond to
|
|
rlm@0
|
386 observable quantities. Since we expect momentum and energy to be
|
|
rlm@0
|
387 measureable quantities, we expect that there are hermitian operators
|
|
rlm@0
|
388 to represent them.
|
|
rlm@0
|
389
|
|
rlm@0
|
390
|
|
rlm@0
|
391 ** Momentum and energy eigenstates in vacuum
|
|
rlm@0
|
392 An eigenstate of the momentum operator $P$ would be a state
|
|
rlm@0
|
393 \(|p\rangle\) such that \(P|p\rangle=p|p\rangle\).
|
|
rlm@0
|
394
|
|
rlm@0
|
395 ** Momentum and energy eigenstates in the infinitely deep well
|
|
rlm@0
|
396
|
|
rlm@0
|
397
|
|
rlm@0
|
398
|
|
rlm@0
|
399 * COMMENT Can you measure momentum in the infinitely deep well?
|
|
rlm@0
|
400 In summary, I thought I knew:
|
|
rlm@0
|
401 1. For any hermitian operator: eigenstates with different eigenvalues
|
|
rlm@0
|
402 are orthogonal.
|
|
rlm@0
|
403 2. For any hermitian operator: any physically realistic state can be
|
|
rlm@0
|
404 written as a linear sum of eigenstates of the operator.
|
|
rlm@0
|
405 3. The momentum operator and energy operator are hermitian, because
|
|
rlm@0
|
406 momentum and energy are observable quantities.
|
|
rlm@0
|
407 4. (The form of the momentum and energy eigenstates in the vacuum potential)
|
|
rlm@0
|
408 5. (The form of the momentum and energy eigenstates in the infinitely deep well potential)
|
|
rlm@0
|
409
|
|
rlm@0
|
410 Additionally, I understood that because the infinitely deep potential
|
|
rlm@0
|
411 well is not realistic, states of such a system are not necessarily
|
|
rlm@0
|
412 physically realistic. Instead, I understood
|
|
rlm@0
|
413 \ldquo{}realistic states\rdquo{} to be those that satisfy the physically
|
|
rlm@0
|
414 unrealistic Schr\ouml{}dinger equation and its boundary conditions.
|
|
rlm@0
|
415
|
|
rlm@0
|
416 With that final caveat, here is the problem:
|
|
rlm@0
|
417
|
|
rlm@0
|
418 According to (5), the momentum eigenstates in the well are
|
|
rlm@0
|
419
|
|
rlm@0
|
420 \(p(x)= \begin{cases}\exp{(ipx/\hbar)},& \text{for }0\lt{}x\lt{}a;\\0, & \text{for }x<0\text{ or }x>a. \\ \end{cases}\)
|
|
rlm@0
|
421
|
|
rlm@0
|
422 (Additionally, we require that $p$ be an integer multiple of $\pi\hbar/a$.)
|
|
rlm@0
|
423
|
|
rlm@0
|
424 However, /these/ states are not orthogonal, which contradicts the
|
|
rlm@0
|
425 assumption that (3) the momentum operator is hermitian and (2)
|
|
rlm@0
|
426 eigenstates of a hermitian are orthogonal if they have different eigenvalues.
|
|
rlm@0
|
427
|
|
rlm@0
|
428 #+begin_quote
|
|
rlm@0
|
429 *Problem 1. The momentum eigenstates of the well are not orthogonal*
|
|
rlm@0
|
430
|
|
rlm@0
|
431 /Proof./ If $p_1\neq p_2$, then
|
|
rlm@0
|
432
|
|
rlm@0
|
433 \(\begin{eqnarray}
|
|
rlm@0
|
434 \langle p_1 | p_2\rangle &=& \int_{\infty}^\infty p_1^*(x)p_2(x)\,dx\\
|
|
rlm@0
|
435 &=& \int_0^a p_1^*(x)p_2(x)\,dx\qquad\text{ Since }p_1(x)=p_2(x)=0\text{
|
|
rlm@0
|
436 outside the well.}\\
|
|
rlm@0
|
437 &=& \int_0^a \exp{(-ip_1x/\hbar)\exp{(ip_2x/\hbar)\,dx}}\\
|
|
rlm@0
|
438 &=& \int_0^a \exp{\left[i(p_1-p_2)x/\hbar\right]}\,dx\\
|
|
rlm@0
|
439 \end{eqnarray}\)
|
|
rlm@0
|
440 $\square$
|
|
rlm@0
|
441
|
|
rlm@0
|
442 #+end_quote
|
|
rlm@0
|
443
|
|
rlm@0
|
444
|
|
rlm@0
|
445
|
|
rlm@0
|
446 ** COMMENT Momentum eigenstates
|
|
rlm@0
|
447
|
|
rlm@0
|
448 In free space, the Hamiltonian is \(H=\frac{1}{2m}P^2\) and the
|
|
rlm@0
|
449 momentum operator $P$ has eigenstates \(p(x) = \exp{(-ipx/\hbar)}\).
|
|
rlm@0
|
450
|
|
rlm@0
|
451 In the infinitely deep potential well, the Hamiltonian is the same but
|
|
rlm@0
|
452 there is a new condition in order for states to qualify as physically
|
|
rlm@0
|
453 allowed: the states must not exist anywhere outside of well, as it
|
|
rlm@0
|
454 takes an infinite amount of energy to do so.
|
|
rlm@0
|
455
|
|
rlm@0
|
456 Notice that the momentum eigenstates defined above do /not/ satisfy
|
|
rlm@0
|
457 this condition.
|
|
rlm@0
|
458
|
|
rlm@0
|
459
|
|
rlm@0
|
460
|
|
rlm@0
|
461 * COMMENT
|
|
rlm@0
|
462 For each physical system, there is a Schr\ouml{}dinger equation that
|
|
rlm@0
|
463 describes how a particle's state $|\psi\rangle$ will change over
|
|
rlm@0
|
464 time.
|
|
rlm@0
|
465
|
|
rlm@0
|
466 \(\begin{eqnarray}
|
|
rlm@0
|
467 i\hbar \frac{\partial}{\partial t}|\psi\rangle &=&
|
|
rlm@0
|
468 H |\psi\rangle \equiv\frac{P^2}{2m}|\psi\rangle+V|\psi\rangle \end{eqnarray}\)
|
|
rlm@0
|
469
|
|
rlm@0
|
470 This is a differential equation; each solution to the
|
|
rlm@0
|
471 Schr\ouml{}dinger equation is a state that is physically allowed for
|
|
rlm@0
|
472 our particle. Here, physically allowed states are
|
|
rlm@0
|
473 those that change in physically allowed ways. However, like any differential
|
|
rlm@0
|
474 equation, the Schr\ouml{}dinger equation can be accompanied by
|
|
rlm@0
|
475 /boundary conditions/\mdash{}conditions that further restrict which
|
|
rlm@0
|
476 states qualify as physically allowed.
|
|
rlm@0
|
477
|
|
rlm@0
|
478
|
|
rlm@0
|
479
|
|
rlm@0
|
480
|
|
rlm@0
|
481 ** Eigenstates of momentum
|
|
rlm@0
|
482
|
|
rlm@0
|
483
|
|
rlm@0
|
484
|
|
rlm@0
|
485
|
|
rlm@0
|
486 #In the infinitely deep well potential $V(x)=0$, the Schr\ouml{}dinger
|
|
rlm@0
|
487
|
|
rlm@0
|
488 #\(i\hbar\frac{\partial}{\partial t}|\psi\rangle = H|\psi\rangle\)
|
|
rlm@0
|
489
|
|
rlm@0
|
490
|
|
rlm@0
|
491
|
|
rlm@0
|
492
|
|
rlm@0
|
493
|
|
rlm@0
|
494
|
|
rlm@0
|
495
|
|
rlm@0
|
496 * COMMENT
|
|
rlm@0
|
497
|
|
rlm@0
|
498 #* The infinite square well potential
|
|
rlm@0
|
499
|
|
rlm@0
|
500 A particle exists in a potential that is
|
|
rlm@0
|
501 infinite everywhere except for a region of length \(a\), where the potential is zero. This means that the
|
|
rlm@0
|
502 particle exists in a potential[fn:coords][fn:infinity]
|
|
rlm@0
|
503
|
|
rlm@0
|
504
|
|
rlm@0
|
505 \(V(x)=\begin{cases}0,&\text{for }\;0< x< a;\\\infty,&\text{for
|
|
rlm@0
|
506 }\;x<0\text{ or }x>a.\end{cases}\)
|
|
rlm@0
|
507
|
|
rlm@0
|
508 The Schr\ouml{}dinger equation describes how the particle's state
|
|
rlm@0
|
509 \(|\psi\rangle\) will change over time in this system.
|
|
rlm@0
|
510
|
|
rlm@0
|
511 \(\begin{eqnarray}
|
|
rlm@0
|
512 i\hbar \frac{\partial}{\partial t}|\psi\rangle &=&
|
|
rlm@0
|
513 H |\psi\rangle \equiv\frac{P^2}{2m}|\psi\rangle+V|\psi\rangle \end{eqnarray}\)
|
|
rlm@0
|
514
|
|
rlm@0
|
515 This is a differential equation; each solution to the
|
|
rlm@0
|
516 Schr\ouml{}dinger equation is a state that is physically allowed for
|
|
rlm@0
|
517 our particle. Here, physically allowed states are
|
|
rlm@0
|
518 those that change in physically allowed ways. However, like any differential
|
|
rlm@0
|
519 equation, the Schr\ouml{}dinger equation can be accompanied by
|
|
rlm@0
|
520 /boundary conditions/\mdash{}conditions that further restrict which
|
|
rlm@0
|
521 states qualify as physically allowed.
|
|
rlm@0
|
522
|
|
rlm@0
|
523
|
|
rlm@0
|
524 Whenever possible, physicists impose these boundary conditions:
|
|
rlm@0
|
525 - A physically allowed state ought to be a /smoothly-varying function of position./ This means
|
|
rlm@0
|
526 that if a particle in the state is likely to be /at/ a particular location,
|
|
rlm@0
|
527 it is also likely to be /near/ that location.
|
|
rlm@0
|
528
|
|
rlm@0
|
529 These boundary conditions imply that for the square well potential in
|
|
rlm@0
|
530 this problem,
|
|
rlm@0
|
531
|
|
rlm@0
|
532 - Physically allowed states must be totally confined to the well,
|
|
rlm@0
|
533 because it takes an infinite amount of energy to exist anywhere
|
|
rlm@0
|
534 outside of the well (and physically allowed states ought to have
|
|
rlm@0
|
535 only finite energy).
|
|
rlm@0
|
536 - Physically allowed states must be increasingly unlikely to find very
|
|
rlm@0
|
537 close to the walls of the well. This is because of two conditions: the above
|
|
rlm@0
|
538 condition says that the particle is /impossible/ to find
|
|
rlm@0
|
539 outside of the well, and the smoothly-varying condition says
|
|
rlm@0
|
540 that if a particle is impossible to find at a particular location,
|
|
rlm@0
|
541 it must be unlikely to be found nearby that location.
|
|
rlm@0
|
542
|
|
rlm@0
|
543 #; physically allowed states are those that change in physically
|
|
rlm@0
|
544 #allowed ways.
|
|
rlm@0
|
545
|
|
rlm@0
|
546
|
|
rlm@0
|
547 #** Boundary conditions
|
|
rlm@0
|
548 Because the potential is infinite everywhere except within the well,
|
|
rlm@0
|
549 a realistic particle must be confined to exist only within the
|
|
rlm@0
|
550 well\mdash{}its wavefunction must be zero everywhere beyond the walls
|
|
rlm@0
|
551 of the well.
|
|
rlm@0
|
552
|
|
rlm@0
|
553
|
|
rlm@0
|
554 [fn:coords] I chose my coordinate system so that the well extends from
|
|
rlm@0
|
555 \(0<x<a\). Others choose a coordinate system so that the well extends from
|
|
rlm@0
|
556 \(-\frac{a}{2}<x<\frac{a}{2}\). Although both coordinate systems describe the same physical
|
|
rlm@0
|
557 situation, they give different-looking answers.
|
|
rlm@0
|
558
|
|
rlm@0
|
559 [fn:infinity] Of course, infinite potentials are not
|
|
rlm@0
|
560 realistic. Instead, they are useful approximations to finite
|
|
rlm@0
|
561 potentials when \ldquo{}infinity\rdquo{} and \ldquo{}the actual height
|
|
rlm@0
|
562 of the well\rdquo{} are close enough for your own practical
|
|
rlm@0
|
563 purposes. Having introduced a physical impossibility into the problem
|
|
rlm@0
|
564 already, we don't expect to get physically realistic solutions; we
|
|
rlm@0
|
565 just expect to get mathematically consistent ones. The forthcoming
|
|
rlm@0
|
566 trouble is that we don't.
|
