0
$\begingroup$

Known that

$$ \frac{\partial \Psi}{\partial t}=\frac{i\hbar }{2m}\frac{\partial^2\Psi}{\partial x^2}-\frac{i}{\hbar}V\Psi \tag 1 $$

By taking the complex conjugate of the equation, obtain

$$ \frac{\partial \Psi^*}{\partial t}=-\frac{i\hbar }{2m}\frac{\partial^2\Psi^*}{\partial x^2}+\frac{i}{\hbar}V\Psi^* \tag 2 $$

where the derivative of the complex conjugate equal to complex conjugate of the derivative.

However, if we substitute $\Psi$ by $\Psi^*$ directly, we obtain $$ \frac{\partial \Psi^*}{\partial t}=\frac{i\hbar }{2m}\frac{\partial^2\Psi^*}{\partial x^2}+\frac{i}{\hbar}V\Psi^* \tag 3 $$

Thus if we compare the last two equation, then we obtain the following function that $$ \partial_x^2\Psi=0 \tag 4 $$ and $$ \partial_t\Psi^*=\frac{i}{\hbar} V\Psi^*. \tag 5 $$

My question was that:

  1. Was equation 3 correct? I think it does because if the function was continuous differentialble in $C$, then by complex analysis we could rewrite the function as $\Psi(x+iy)=u(x,y)+iv(x,y)$.

  2. What happened in equation 4 and equation 5? was they correct? especially, why $\partial_x^2\Psi=0$ the particle was not accelerate?

(This was not a homework question, because usually people only consider eq. 2 which was in the textbook.)

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I recommend that you edit your post to reword all the 'is my equation correct?' stuff for the reason that 'check my work' questions are considered off-topic and are generally down-voted and closed. $\endgroup$ – Alfred Centauri Apr 2 '18 at 0:43
  • $\begingroup$ i do not understand what you are doing. if you just replace psi by psi* then the sign of the last term in eq. 3 is incorrect. but in any case it is not because psi satisfies an equation that psi* satisfies the same equation. $\endgroup$ – Oбжорoв Apr 2 '18 at 18:11
  • $\begingroup$ I wasn’t sure either (that’s why I was asking the question ), $\Psi^*$ was the complex conjugate of the equation. In eq3 i simply replaced $\psi$ by $pis^*$ which could be done through complex analysis if assume equation was continuous and différentiable. $\endgroup$ – J C Apr 2 '18 at 18:15
4
$\begingroup$

The fact that some function $\Psi$ satisfies a differential equation does not imply that $\Psi^*$ satisfies the equation too, so everything after equation 2 is nonsensical.

It is, of course, possible that $\Psi^*$ also satisfies the differential equation, but that would be a special case. I'm not sure why you would think otherwise. For example, the equation $$y' + iy = 0$$ is solved by functions of the form $Ce^{-ix}$ but not by their complex conjugates.

Lastly, acceleration is not a particularly meaningful concept in quantum mechanics. Position is generally not a well-defined property of a state, much less the derivatives of position with respect to time.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ In a strange way I thought the same. However, I couldn't give me a proper proof. Because the complex conjugate of derivative=derivative of complex conjugate.(I have checked that in Mathstachexchange.) Thus $(\partial_t \Psi(x,t))^*=\partial_t (\Psi(x,t))^*$. If you couldn't accept that just yet, including me, then a usual trick was that $\Psi(x,t)$ could always be written as the combination of its real and imaginary part. i.e. $\Psi(t)=f(x,t)+ig(x,t)$ where $f,g,$ were real functions. Thus you could put it back into the equation $\endgroup$ – J C Apr 5 '18 at 12:32
  • $\begingroup$ , even If $V$ dependent of $x,t$ it still worked. (If you couldn't write it analytically, you cold write it numerically, both worked,) $\endgroup$ – J C Apr 5 '18 at 12:32
  • $\begingroup$ Your case was exactly what I said and even better, we have analytic solution to $f,g$ by using Euler identity, and if you check it's the same. $\endgroup$ – J C Apr 5 '18 at 13:02
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @JC I'm perfectly aware that the derivative of the conjugate is equal to the conjugate of the derivative, but that doesn't mean that the conjugate satisfies the same differential equation. $e^{-ix}$ satisfies the equation I wrote, but if you try to plug in $e^{+ix}$ then it doesn't work. $\endgroup$ – J. Murray Apr 5 '18 at 13:10

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.