Position and momentum (basic stuff)

In summary, the free particle can be represented as a superposition of momentum eigenstates and its wave function will spread out over time according to the Schrödinger equation. There is no preference for any observable in quantum mechanics, but potentials often depend on position which is why the coordinate representation is preferred in atomic physics. However, in condensed matter physics, the momentum basis is more commonly used. It is possible to have equivalent "momentum-based" wave functions that can be obtained by Fourier transforming the position wave function, and this is often done in problems involving uniform fields. In condensed matter, it is also common to use an occupation number basis to express the state vector.
  • #1
broegger
257
0
I was just reading about the free particle and how it can be represented as a superposition of momentum eigenstates and so on. I came to think about this:

Let's say we have free particle whose initial state is a Dirac delta function type of thing (localized position). The momentum distribution will then be a uniform distribution over all values. As time goes on the wave function will spread out according to the Schrödinger equation. But what happens to the momentum distribution; does it become more localized? It's just the Fourier Transform of the wave function, right?

This leads me to another question. The wave function, [tex]\Psi[/tex], seems to have some sort of preference for the "position" observable (I mean, when you take the norm-square, you get the position-distribution, you have to Fourier Transform it to get the momentum distribution and so on). Couldn't you have an equivalent "momentum-based" wave function, so that when you Fourier Transform this wave function you get the position distribution. Indeed, couldn't you have such equivalent wave functions for all observables (maybe there is, I've never met them)?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
broegger said:
This leads me to another question. The wave function, [tex]\Psi[/tex], seems to have some sort of preference for the "position" observable (I mean, when you take the norm-square, you get the position-distribution, you have to Fourier Transform it to get the momentum distribution and so on). Couldn't you have an equivalent "momentum-based" wave function, so that when you Fourier Transform this wave function you get the position distribution. Indeed, couldn't you have such equivalent wave functions for all observables (maybe there is, I've never met them)?

I'll let someone else handle the first part.
There is no preference whatsoever,QM is very abstract.However,potentials (which would enter the Hamiltonian) are not.They depend in general on [itex] \hat{q} [/itex] ...So that's why people prefer coordinate representation,especially in atomic physics...

Daniel.
 
  • #3
Here's a hint or two about how to answer your first question. First, past t=0, a free particle wave function will be exp( +i px - i Et) -- take your pick of energy. E = p*p/2m is the easist. For general t, the wavefunction that's a delta at t=0, involves a Gaussian integral, which can be done.

People use momentum space representations all the time -- from Quantum Field Theory to basic QM. Configuration space methods tend to be associated with bound state problems, while momentum space methods tend to be associated with scattering problems.
 
  • #4
dextercioby said:
...So that's why people prefer coordinate representation,especially in atomic physics...

In contrast, in condensed matter physics, almost everything is done in the momentum (or really the k-vector) basis. Usually the very first thing people do is Fourier transform the potential so we can write down Bloch states and such.

broegger said:
Couldn't you have an equivalent "momentum-based" wave function, so that when you Fourier Transform this wave function you get the position distribution. Indeed, couldn't you have such equivalent wave functions for all observables (maybe there is, I've never met them)?

Some problems are easier in the momentum basis. For instance, consider a particle in a uniform field, such as within a capacitor, then you have
[tex] E \Psi = (\frac{P^2}{2m} + qFx) \Psi [/tex]
(using F for field so as to not confuse it with the energy E.)

In position basis, we'd take P -> -i hbar d/dx, but this generates a 2nd order differential equation. However, if we go to the momentum basis, where P is just a coordinate, then x becomes +i hbar d/dp, and this is a first order differential equation.

In condensed matter, working with many-particle wave functions, it's typically common to think of things in terms of an occupation number basis. Thanks to the Pauli exclusion principle, when dealing with electrons only one electron can occupy each quantum state, so you can express the state vector (or wave function) in terms of how many particles occupy each state (0 or 1).
 

FAQ: Position and momentum (basic stuff)

What is the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle?

The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is a fundamental principle in quantum mechanics that states it is impossible to simultaneously know the exact position and momentum of a particle. This is because the act of measuring one quantity will inevitably disturb the other quantity, making it impossible to have precise knowledge of both at the same time.

How are position and momentum related?

Position and momentum are related through the principles of quantum mechanics. According to the de Broglie hypothesis, all particles exhibit both wave-like and particle-like behavior. This means that the position of a particle can be described by a wave function, and the momentum is related to the wavelength of this wave function. The more precisely the position is known, the less precisely the momentum can be known, and vice versa.

What are the units of position and momentum?

The units of position are typically measured in meters (m), while the units of momentum are typically measured in kilograms per meter per second (kg*m/s). In quantum mechanics, the units of momentum are sometimes measured in terms of Planck's constant, h, which has units of joule-seconds (J*s).

Can position and momentum be measured simultaneously?

No, according to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, it is impossible to know the exact position and momentum of a particle simultaneously. This is because the act of measuring one quantity will inevitably disturb the other quantity, making it impossible to have precise knowledge of both at the same time.

What is the difference between classical and quantum mechanics in regards to position and momentum?

In classical mechanics, the position and momentum of a particle can be known with absolute certainty. However, in quantum mechanics, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle states that it is impossible to know both quantities with certainty at the same time. This is because particles in quantum mechanics exhibit wave-like behavior, and the act of measuring one quantity will inevitably disturb the other.

Similar threads

Replies
3
Views
999
Replies
27
Views
3K
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
5K
Replies
51
Views
4K
Replies
19
Views
2K
Back
Top