[QM] Two-Particle Systems: overlapping/non-overlapping wavefunctions

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on the concept of overlapping and non-overlapping wavefunctions in two-particle systems, particularly in the context of quantum mechanics as presented in Griffiths' text. It highlights the confusion regarding the calculation of expectation values and the implications of orthogonal wavefunctions, specifically questioning why certain integrals yield non-zero results when the wavefunctions are orthogonal. The text clarifies that the expectation value vanishes unless the wavefunctions overlap, meaning they are non-zero at the same position. It emphasizes that for particles with non-overlapping wavefunctions, such as electrons in different locations, they can be treated as distinguishable. Overall, the discussion seeks to clarify the significance of wavefunction overlap in quantum mechanics.
WeiShan Ng
Messages
36
Reaction score
2

Homework Statement


1.png

Hi, I was reading Griffiths and stumble upon some questions. This is from 5.1.2 Exchange Forces. The section is trying to work out the square of the separation distance between two particles, $$\langle (x_1 - x_2)^2 \rangle = \langle x_1^2 \rangle + \langle x_2^2 \rangle - 2 \langle x_1 x_2 \rangle$$
My confusion came when
$$\int x_1 \psi_a (x_1)^* \psi_b (x_1) dx_1 \, \int x_2 \psi_b(x_2)^* \psi_a(x_2) dx_2 = \langle x \rangle _{ab} \langle x \rangle _{ba}$$ I don't get why there are ##\langle x \rangle _{ab}## and ##\langle x \rangle _{ba}## here , won't the $$\int x_2 \psi_b(x_2)^* \psi_a(x_2) dx_2=\int x_1 \psi_a (x_1)^* \psi_b (x_1) dx_1=0??$$ since both ##\psi_a## and ##\psi_b## are orthogonal to each other?

And in the next paragraph the text says
Notice that ##\langle x \rangle _{ab} ## vanishes unless the two wavefunctions actually overlap [if ##\psi_a(x)## is zero wherever ##\psi_b(x)## is nonzero, the integral in Equation 5.20 is zero] So if ##\psi_a## represents an electron in an atom in Chicago, and ##\psi_b## represents an electron in an atom in Seattle, it's not going to make any difference whether you antisymmetrize the wave function or not. As a practical matter, therefore, it's okay to pretend that electrons with nonoverlapping wave functions are distinguishable.
What is the meaning of "overlap" here? Based on the text given I assume it means both particles are "at the same position", i.e. ##x_1=x_2##. And how does an overlapping and non-overlapping wavefunction look like?

Homework Equations

The Attempt at a Solution

 

Attachments

  • 1.png
    1.png
    23.5 KB · Views: 1,409
Physics news on Phys.org
This picture may answer your question "how does an overlapping and non-overlapping wavefunction look like?"
 

Attachments

  • Capture.PNG
    Capture.PNG
    6.8 KB · Views: 663
  • Like
Likes WeiShan Ng
Nguyen Son said:
This picture may answer your question "how does an overlapping and non-overlapping wavefunction look like?"
Thank you!
 
Thread 'Help with Time-Independent Perturbation Theory "Good" States Proof'
(Disclaimer: this is not a HW question. I am self-studying, and this felt like the type of question I've seen in this forum. If there is somewhere better for me to share this doubt, please let me know and I'll transfer it right away.) I am currently reviewing Chapter 7 of Introduction to QM by Griffiths. I have been stuck for an hour or so trying to understand the last paragraph of this proof (pls check the attached file). It claims that we can express Ψ_{γ}(0) as a linear combination of...

Similar threads

Back
Top