What does a zero-value of the Born-condition mean?

I am not a chemist...In summary, the integrals given in the conversation have specific physical meanings. The first integral implies that ##\psi=0##, the second implies that the average position is zero, and the third implies that the average momentum is not well defined. Normalization does not solve this issue, as shown by the example of the delta-function ##\delta(x)##. The wavefunction proposed by the individual in the conversation does not satisfy the first integral and is not square integrable. In order to make progress with the model, the individual must show that the integral ##\int \psi^*\psi dx## is a positive real number.
  • #1
SeM
Hi, I was wondering what is the physical meaning of these integrals:

\begin{equation}
\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \psi \psi^* dx = 0
\end{equation}\begin{equation}
\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \psi x \psi^* dx = 0
\end{equation}

\begin{equation}
\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \psi p \psi^* dx = NA
\end{equation}

?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #3
Demystifier said:
Where did you find this expression?

By a function I have been calculating on
 
  • #5
Demystifier said:
What is ##t##? Time? 3-volume?
Sorry, I should have used x. Corrected.
 
  • #6
(1) implies ##\psi=0##.
(2) means that average position is zero.
(3) means that the average momentum is not well defined.
 
  • Like
Likes SeM
  • #7
Demystifier said:
(1) implies ##\psi=0##.

This part is not clear to me. Evidently, Psi and Psi* are hermitian counterparts, so their multiplication with one another ends up with zero.

Demystifier said:
(2) means that average position is zero.
This is OK. But does that mean the wavefunction has not physical application?

Demystifier said:
(3) means that the average momentum is not well defined.

This is fine. Does normalization solve this?
 
  • #8
SeM said:
Evidently, Psi and Psi* are hermitian counterparts, so their multiplication with one another ends up with zero.
No. For properly normalized wave functions you should have ##\int \psi^*\psi dx=1##.

SeM said:
But does that mean the wavefunction has not physical application?
No, such wave functions have a lot of applications. For instance, the ground state of harmonic oscillator has zero average position.

SeM said:
Does normalization solve this?
Probably not. Consider, for example, the delta-function ##\delta(x)##. It has undefined average momentum and change of normalization does not help.
 
  • Like
Likes SeM
  • #9
Demystifier said:
No. For properly normalized wave functions you should have ##\int \psi^*\psi dx=1##.

Is there any chance of solving this constant by setting the integral:

\begin{equation}
N^2 \int_0^L \psi \psi^* dx = 1
\end{equation}

and solve for N?

I tried and got complex conjugates, in fact, not only one, but two.

Demystifier said:
No, such wave functions have a lot of applications. For instance, the ground state of harmonic oscillator has zero average position.

Thanks for this interesting point! Do you know of a paper that reports such a wavefunction?

Demystifier said:
Probably not. Consider, for example, the delta-function ##\delta(x)##. It has undefined average momentum and change of normalization does not help.

What does one do with such wavefunctions without a well-defined momentum and kinetic energy?
 
  • #10
SeM said:
Is there any chance of solving this constant by setting the integral:

\begin{equation}
N^2 \int_0^L \psi \psi^* dx = 1
\end{equation}

and solve for N?
Yes, provided that N is assumed to be real. (Otherwise, you should write ##N^*N## instead of ##N^2##.)

SeM said:
I tried and got complex conjugates, in fact, not only one, but two.
Take into account that N is assumed to be real.

SeM said:
Thanks for this interesting point! Do you know of a paper that reports such a wavefunction?
Any textbook on quantum mechanics (QM) should do. Which book on QM do you use?

SeM said:
What does one do with such wavefunctions without a well-defined momentum and kinetic energy?
Such a ##\delta##-function is an idealization of a more realistic case of a very narrow Gaussian. Even though the idealization is not realistic, it is OK as long as you only consider positions and not momenta or energy.
 
  • #11
Demystifier said:
Yes, provided that N is assumed to be real. (Otherwise, you should write ##N^*N## instead of ##N^2##.)

Take into account that N is assumed to be real.
Tried and got two weird values.

Let me share this strange wavefunction with the forum here:

\begin{equation}
\psi(x)= \frac{e^{-x(k_2-k_1)}\big(\sqrt{E-2\gamma^2}+\gamma i\big)}{2\sqrt{E-2\gamma^2}}-\frac{e^{-x(k_1+k_2)}\big(-\sqrt{E-2\gamma^2}+\gamma i\big)}{2\sqrt{E-2\gamma^2}}
\end{equation}

Demystifier said:
Any textbook on quantum mechanics (QM) should do. Which book on QM do you use?
Molecular Quantum Mechanics, there they normalize it, and get nice eigenfunctions. This function however, gave two horrible Normalization constants, of the length of half a page, and cannot really give a worse starting point for generating higher energy levels.
 
  • #12
In your wave function I see only one (not two) implicit values of N, and I see nothing strange with it.
 
  • #13
Demystifier said:
In your wave function I see only one (not two) implicit values of N, and I see nothing strange with it.

This function is without N. I had two initial conditions for the original ODE, first y(0)=1 and y'(0)=0 , and got this function. This function follows the integrals given in the first post.

Therefore I was looking for adding a normalization constant to the integrals.
 
  • #14
SeM said:
This function follows the integrals given in the first post.
This function does not satisfy your Eq. (1).
 
  • #15
SeM said:
Molecular Quantum Mechanics
Author please!
 
  • #16
Demystifier said:
Author please!
Atkins and Friedman
 
  • #17
Demystifier said:
This function does not satisfy your Eq. (1).

you need k_1 and k_2, these are:\begin{equation}
k_1 = {\frac{\,\sqrt{E-2\,\gamma^2}}{\hbar}}
\end{equation}

\begin{equation}
k_2 = \frac{\gamma i}{\hbar}
\end{equation}##\gamma = 5^{-28}## and E is the zero point energy. If you still get that integral 1 is not satisfied, then MATLAB is crap
 
  • #18
SeM said:
Atkins and Friedman
Are you a chemist? I ask because it looks like you miss the basic foundations of QM. In any case, study first Chapters 1 and 2 of the book. For instance, in Fig. 2.27 (fourth edition) all wave functions have zero average position.
 
  • Like
Likes SeM
  • #19
Yes, but this model has not potential energy. and Yes I am a chemist.

What can I do to develop this model further as it does not follow the Hamiltonian on p 55, chapter 2, where fig 2.27 is.

Thanks!
 
  • #20
SeM said:
p 55, chapter 2, where fig 2.27 is.
We must be using different editions of the book. Mine is the 4th edition. In any case, try to compute ##\int \psi^*\psi dx## again and show that it is a positive real number. You cannot make any progress before you do that.
 
  • Like
Likes SeM and vanhees71
  • #21
Sorry to barge in, but your wavefunction model is proportional to ##\cosh (k_1x)##, which is not square integrable for ##x\in (-\infty,\infty)##. Moreover, the wavefunction is also proportional to an oscillatory function whose wave number is extremely large ##~10^{-28}/10^{-34} \approx 10^6##. It can be the reason why MATLAB returns zero. Have you tried executing "format long" command to extend the decimal places in the output ?
 
  • #22
blue_leaf77 said:
Sorry to barge in, but your wavefunction model is proportional to ##\cosh (k_1x)##, which is not square integrable for ##x\in (-\infty,\infty)##. Moreover, the wavefunction is also proportional to an oscillatory function whose wave number is extremely large ##~10^{-28}/10^{-34} \approx 10^6##. It can be the reason why MATLAB returns zero. Have you tried executing "format long" command to extend the decimal places in the output ?
His wave function probably needs to be defined in a box of finite length ##L##, as suggested in post #9.
 
  • #23
SeM said:
##\gamma = 5^{-28}## ... If you still get that integral 1 is not satisfied, then MATLAB is crap
One of the first rules in any numerical computation (with MATLAB or anything else) is to first introduce new dimensionless variables (which are certain ratios of the dimensional ones) such that all relevant parameters are of the order of unity. Very big and very small numbers are always potentially dangerous in numerical computations.
 
  • #24
Demystifier said:
We must be using different editions of the book. Mine is the 4th edition. In any case, try to compute ##\int \psi^*\psi dx## again and show that it is a positive real number. You cannot make any progress before you do that.

Thanks! Can you possibly scan the page or mention any of the subttiles of the page or preceeding pages, so I may look for it in the book?

I will recompute the integral tomorrow and see if it gives another value in the meantime.

Cheers
 
  • #25
Demystifier said:
His wave function probably needs to be defined in a box of finite length ##L##, as suggested in post #9.
Defining it in a box of length L, implies that I do this:Psi(x) = 0 , L=0

Psi(x) = 0 , L=Land I add a normalization constant N^2 to the Born intergral, and then use L=L and L=0 as the limits?

I then solve for this integral, but x will still be there...?
 
  • #26
SeM said:
Thanks! Can you possibly scan the page or mention any of the subttiles of the page or preceeding pages, so I may look for it in the book?
Search for the section The harmonic oscillator - The solutions.
 
  • Like
Likes SeM
  • #27
SeM said:
Defining it in a box of length L, implies that I do this:Psi(x) = 0 , L=0

Psi(x) = 0 , L=Land I add a normalization constant N^2 to the Born intergral, and then use L=L and L=0 as the limits?

I then solve for this integral, but x will still be there...?
You mean x=0 and x=L. When you integrate over x from 0 to L, then x is no longer there.
 
  • Like
Likes SeM
  • #28
Demystifier said:
You mean x=0 and x=L. When you integrate over x from 0 to L, then x is no longer there.

Indeed! Sorry for that mistake. I will try this tomorrow,

All the best
 
  • #29
Demystifier said:
You mean x=0 and x=L. When you integrate over x from 0 to L, then x is no longer there.
Demystifier said:
Search for the section The harmonic oscillator - The solutions.

Dear Demystifier, I have gone through the Further information on chap. 2.2 Harmonic Oscillator, and it appears as that I have to solve the Schrödinger eqn using the annhalation and creation operators, instead of solving it numerically, as I did and got that strange wavefunction.

Thanks for your tip. This becomes an entirely new project, because it's currently huge.

Thanks!
 
  • #30
Well, if you want to learn quantum chemistry, you cannot avoid learning more about harmonic oscillator.
 
  • #31
Demystifier said:
Well, if you want to learn quantum chemistry, you cannot avoid learning more about harmonic oscillator.
I look forward to it.
 

FAQ: What does a zero-value of the Born-condition mean?

What is the Born-condition?

The Born-condition is a fundamental principle in quantum mechanics that states that the probability of finding a particle in a particular location is proportional to the square of its wave function at that location.

What does a zero-value of the Born-condition mean?

A zero-value of the Born-condition means that the probability of finding a particle in a particular location is zero. This could indicate that the particle does not exist in that location or that the wave function is zero at that point.

Can a particle have a zero probability of being found?

Yes, according to the Born-condition, a particle can have a zero probability of being found in a particular location. This does not mean that the particle does not exist, but rather that it is highly unlikely to be found in that location.

What are the implications of a zero-value of the Born-condition?

The implications of a zero-value of the Born-condition can vary depending on the specific context. It could mean that the particle does not exist in that location, that the wave function is zero at that point, or that there is a barrier preventing the particle from being found in that location.

How does the Born-condition relate to the uncertainty principle?

The Born-condition and the uncertainty principle are both fundamental principles of quantum mechanics. The Born-condition states that the probability of finding a particle in a particular location is proportional to the square of its wave function, while the uncertainty principle states that there is a fundamental limit to how precisely we can measure certain pairs of physical properties of a particle. Both principles are essential for understanding the behavior of particles at the quantum level.

Similar threads

Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
22
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
21
Views
2K
Replies
20
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
1K
Back
Top