Imaginary numbers and the real part of the Schrodinger Equation

Hypatio
Messages
147
Reaction score
1
At the moment I am studying the Schrodinger equation using this resource.

In a 1D solution (sec 3.1 in the paper) they show that a wave function can be expressed as

\Psi(x,t)=\sqrt{2}e^{-iE_{n_x}t}\sin (n_x\pi x)

where n_x is the quantum number. And they show the real part of the solution in Figure 2a for t=0 and for over time in Figure 3a. I do not understand the structure seen in the time-dependent solution. In particular, in my solution I can show exactly what they give in Figure 3 except that I ONLY show the wavefunction being positive at x<0.5 and negative in x>0.5. I can only get all their curves if I assume that the wave function is both positive and negative over time.

I think this might be due to the fact that I do not understand the use of the imaginary number in the equation and solutions. For instance, apparently when the above equation is squared you arrive at

\Psi^2=2\sin^2 (n_x\pi x)

But I don't see how that operates on the exponential. So what is the function of the imaginary number in the schrodinger equation? Do you just assume that i=1 sometimes and i=-1 othertimes?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You're not just squaring the wave function, you do the square modulus. This means you multiply the wave function by its complex conjugate, here it is
\Psi = \sqrt(2) exp(iEt) sin(n\pi x) [\tex]<br /> When you work it out, the i&#039;s should cancel out.<br /> <br /> i<sup>2</sup>= -1 ALWAYS, from my knowledge at least. Hopefully there is someone with more experience here that may be able to correct me.<br /> <br /> EDIT: My LaTeX text isn&#039;t working, no idea what I&#039;m doing wrong. my apologies
 
Last edited:
The probability density in fig. 2(b) is
P(x,t)=&lt;\overline{\Psi}(x,t)\vert\Psi(x,t)&gt;
where the amplitude and its conjugate are
\Psi(x,t)=e^{-iE_n t}A_{n}\sin(n\pi x) and
\overline{\Psi}(x,t)=e^{+iE_n t}A_{n}\sin(n\pi x)
 
Bob S said:
The probability density in fig. 2(b) is
P(x,t)=&lt;\overline{\Psi}(x,t)\vert\Psi(x,t)&gt;
where the amplitude and its conjugate are
\Psi(x,t)=e^{-iE_n t}A_{n}\sin(n\pi x) and
\overline{\Psi}(x,t)=e^{+iE_n t}A_{n}\sin(n\pi x)

That's what I was trying to say, except this is much nicer. Thanks Bob!
 
I read Hanbury Brown and Twiss's experiment is using one beam but split into two to test their correlation. It said the traditional correlation test were using two beams........ This confused me, sorry. All the correlation tests I learnt such as Stern-Gerlash are using one beam? (Sorry if I am wrong) I was also told traditional interferometers are concerning about amplitude but Hanbury Brown and Twiss were concerning about intensity? Isn't the square of amplitude is the intensity? Please...
I am not sure if this belongs in the biology section, but it appears more of a quantum physics question. Mike Wiest, Associate Professor of Neuroscience at Wellesley College in the US. In 2024 he published the results of an experiment on anaesthesia which purported to point to a role of quantum processes in consciousness; here is a popular exposition: https://neurosciencenews.com/quantum-process-consciousness-27624/ As my expertise in neuroscience doesn't reach up to an ant's ear...
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

Similar threads

Back
Top