1
$\begingroup$

If a quantum state is an eigenstate of the Hamiltonian, then it is stationary. But can a state be stationary if it is not an eigenstate of the Hamiltonian? If yes, how can one prove whether a state is stationary?

$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Stationary states are defined to be eigenstates of the Hamiltonian. So your question is saying "If A, then A. But can we have A, if not A?" $\endgroup$ – knzhou Jul 19 '16 at 23:38
  • $\begingroup$ @knzhou I thought so, but in another question I asked, someone told me "So the state is stationary if it is an eigenstate. But this is not the only possibility for stationarity." so I'm in doubt now. $\endgroup$ – Tendero Jul 19 '16 at 23:40
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ That answer is wrong, in several places. $\endgroup$ – knzhou Jul 19 '16 at 23:42
3
$\begingroup$

A state $\Psi(x,t)$ is stationary if

$$\mid\Psi(x,t)\mid^2=\mid\Psi(x,0)\mid^2$$

This means that the time dependence of $\Psi(x,t)$ must be in the form

$$\Psi(x, t) = \Psi(x, 0) \ e^{i \phi t}$$

but you also have (Schrödinger's equation)

$$i \hbar \partial_t \ \Psi(x,t) =\hat H \ \Psi(x,t)$$

so that we obtain

$$(i \hbar)(i \phi) \Psi(x,t) =\hat H \ \Psi(x,t) \\ \to-\hbar \phi \Psi(x,t) =\hat H \ \Psi(x,t)$$

i.e. $\Psi(x,t)$ is an eigenstate of $\hat H$ with eigenvalue $-\hbar \phi$. This means, incidentally, that $\phi$ must have the dimensions of energy/action, that is to say

$$\phi=\frac E \hbar$$

So if a state is stationary, it is an eigenstate of $\hat H$. Since we know that the reverse is true, we can conclude that a state is stationary if and only if it is an eigenstate of $\hat H$.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ You're answer is good but you might want to add why $\Psi(x, t) = \Psi(x, 0) \ e^{i \phi t}$ is true. Don't assume people know that. $\endgroup$ – Gert Jul 20 '16 at 2:17
  • $\begingroup$ Yeah, you pretty much used circular reasoning. From $|\Psi(x,t)|^2=|\Psi(x,0)|^2$ immediately comes only that $\Psi(x,t)=e^{i\alpha(x,t)}\Psi(x,0)$. Why it should be just a $\phi t$ demands proof... I'm going to present short proof I've made up now in my answer though I'm sure there may be much more elegant way. $\endgroup$ – OON Jul 20 '16 at 10:33
  • $\begingroup$ Arr, no, I've stupid mistake, so I'll hide that for now $\endgroup$ – OON Jul 20 '16 at 10:53

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.