Justification of a common calculation

  • Thread starter saunderson
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Calculation
In summary, the author justifies the use of an expression like "for example?" by claiming that it is implicitly assumed that the wavefunction is square integrable, and that if the long-range behavior of the wavefunction is of the form 1/|x|^{\alpha} for \alpha > 1, then this condition is (usually) satisfied.
  • #1
saunderson
62
1
Hi,

isn't it a bit dangerous to claim that

[tex]\left[ x \cdot \left( \psi(x,t) \, \frac{\partial \psi^\ast (x,t)}{\partial x} + \psi^\ast(x,t) \, \frac{\partial \psi(x,t)}{\partial x} \right) \right]_{x=-\infty}^{x=\infty} = 0[/tex]​


for example?

Expressions like this one are often found in popular quantum mechanics textbooks. How do you justify such expressions? I would prefer a mathematical- instead of a physical explanation...

With best regards
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Very good question. I spent several days trying to figure it out when I first began learning QM (and haven't stopped since!). Here is my take on it.

It is implicitly assumed here that the wavefunction is square integrable meaning

[tex]\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} |\psi(x)|^2\,dx[/tex]

exists and is finite. Books usually do not go further than this, but state conditions of "well behaviour" (but see * below). More rigorous books on QM will tell you that if the long-range behavior of the wavefunction is of the form [itex]1/|x|^{\alpha}[/itex] for [itex]\alpha > 1[/itex], then this condition is (usually) satisfied. [c.f. Schwabl, for instance.]

So in your expression, as [itex]|x| \rightarrow \infty[/itex], the terms involving the product of the wavefunction and its derivative will go to zero faster than [itex]x[/itex] tends to infinity, and hence 'overall' the expression will go to zero at [itex]|x| = \infty[/itex].

If you want to be more rigorous, you can define a subspace of the Hilbert space and regard only square integrable functions or functions satisfying some regularity conditions, as valid wavefunctions. That way, all such boundary terms automatically vanish.

* - Square integrability does not guarantee that the wavefunction goes to zero at infinity. For an explanation, see D.V. Widder, "Advanced Calculus" 2nd ed., Dover, New York, 1998, p. 325.
 
  • #3
Thank you for your fast and detailed answer! That supports my assumption that several authors leave the reader deliberatly (or not) behind some serious issues :rolleyes:

Now my thoughts about this are about to come to maturity...

Any other suggestions are appreciated as well =)
 

FAQ: Justification of a common calculation

What is the purpose of justifying a common calculation?

The purpose of justifying a common calculation is to provide a clear and logical explanation for the steps and methods used to arrive at a particular numerical result. Justification helps to ensure that the calculation is accurate, valid, and can be replicated by others.

How do you justify a common calculation?

To justify a common calculation, you need to clearly explain the reasoning behind each step of the calculation. This can include referencing relevant equations, principles, or assumptions, as well as providing any necessary contextual information or data. Diagrams and visual aids can also be helpful in justifying a calculation.

Why is it important to justify a common calculation?

Justifying a common calculation is important because it allows others to understand and evaluate the accuracy and validity of the result. It also helps to identify any potential errors or sources of uncertainty in the calculation, which can then be addressed and corrected.

Are there any specific guidelines for justifying a common calculation?

While there are no set guidelines for justifying a common calculation, it is generally recommended to use clear and concise language, provide all necessary information, and avoid making assumptions or skipping steps. It can also be helpful to follow a logical and organized structure, and include any relevant references or sources.

Can a common calculation be justified differently by different scientists?

Yes, the way in which a common calculation is justified may vary slightly among different scientists. However, the end goal of justifying a calculation is the same - to provide a clear and logical explanation for the result. As long as the justification is accurate and follows sound scientific principles, there is room for some variation in the approach.

Back
Top