1
$\begingroup$

The question is 12.3.3 from Shankar. Consider a particle with the wave function $\psi(\rho, \varphi) = Ae^{-\rho^2/2\Delta^2}\cos^2(\varphi)$, and show $\mathbb{P}(l_z = 0) = 2/3$.

We have just found the eigenfunctions of $L_z$ and know $\Phi_m(\rho,\varphi) = R(\rho)e^{-il_z\varphi/\hbar}$. So our probability must be $|\langle\Phi_0|\psi\rangle|^2$. We are told to write cosine squared as functions of $e^{im\varphi}$, and are given some integral equalities. Also I have normalised the $\rho$ parts and the $\varphi$ parts of $\psi$ separately.

My issue is, what justification for neglecting the $\int_0^\infty A_\rho R(\rho) e^{-\rho^2/2\Delta^2}\rho\, d\rho$ term? I know it must be 1 (I get the right answer when it is) But I'm not sure why?

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ I don't see where you've neglected it at all in your question, if it's properly normalized then that integral should be unity no? $\endgroup$
    – Triatticus
    Commented Jan 17, 2023 at 1:47
  • $\begingroup$ Yeah, $A_p e^{-p^2/2\delta^2}$ Is normalised, and so is R(p), how do I know their product is? $\endgroup$
    – Clayton
    Commented Jan 17, 2023 at 2:17
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Wouldn't the whole radial part be normalized I mean, it seems strange to say you've only normalized part of the radial wave function. $\endgroup$
    – Triatticus
    Commented Jan 17, 2023 at 5:58
  • $\begingroup$ I think I might have a fundamental misunderstanding, $\Phi_m$ is normalized, so $R(\rho)$ is normalized. When I look at the $\rho$ terms in $\langle \Phi_m |\psi\rangle$ why should that product be normalized to one? $\endgroup$
    – Clayton
    Commented Jan 17, 2023 at 10:03

1 Answer 1

0
$\begingroup$

The integral $$ \int_0^{\infty} A e^{-\rho^2/2\Delta^2} R(\rho) \rho \,d\rho \tag{1} $$ is some number, call it $C$. It will be a common factor in all calculations since it does not depend on $m$.

Basically, because the radial part of the probability distribution does not depend on $m$, expand $$ \cos(\varphi)^2=\left(e^{2i\varphi} +2 +e^{-2i\varphi}\right)\, . \tag{2} $$ Using $e^{im\varphi}/{\sqrt{2\pi}}$ as normalized states over the circle, the probability of getting $m=0$ is related to the overlap $$ \int_0^{\infty} A e^{-\rho^2/2\Delta^2} R(\rho) \rho \,d\rho \times \int_0^{2\pi} d\varphi \cos(\varphi^2) \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}}= C \sqrt{\frac{\pi}{2}}\, , \\ P(m=0)=\vert C\vert^2 \frac{\pi}{2} $$ The probability of getting $m=\pm 2$ is likewise given by $$ \int_0^{\infty} A e^{-\rho^2/2\Delta^2} R(\rho) \rho \,d\rho \times \int_0^{2\pi} d\varphi \cos(\varphi^2) \frac{e^{\pm 2i\varphi}}{\sqrt{2\pi}}= \frac{C}{2} \sqrt{\frac{\pi}{2}}\, , \\ P(m=\pm 2)=\vert C\vert^2 \frac{1}{4}\frac{\pi}{2}\, . $$ As the probabilities must sum to 1 you can now determine $\vert C\vert^2$: $$ \vert C\vert^2\frac{\pi}{2}\left(\frac14 + 1+ \frac14\right)=1 \quad\Rightarrow\quad \vert C\vert^2=\frac{4}{3\pi} $$ so $$ P(m=0)=\frac{4}{3\pi}\times \frac{\pi}{2}= \frac{2}{3}\, ,\\ P(m=\pm 2)=\frac{4}{3\pi}\times \frac{\pi}{8}=\frac{1}{6}\, . $$

As a shortcut, note that all the $\Phi_m$ states share the same radial function so the integral (1) will be common to all $m$-states; the square of the coefficients in (2) give now the unnormalized probabilities of getting each $m$ outcome. Since the sum of the coefficients is $6$, the probabilities are then $$ m=\pm 2: 1/6\, ,\qquad m=0: 4/6=2/3 $$ of course as before.

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ I didn't think of letting that be just some number common to all states! This really helped my understanding. Thank you so much! $\endgroup$
    – Clayton
    Commented Jan 17, 2023 at 23:42
  • $\begingroup$ There's something very weird about $C$ being the same irrespective of $R(\rho)$. Consider the family $R_{km}(\rho,\phi)=r^k e^{-r^2/2} \sqrt{2/k!}e^{i m\phi}/\sqrt{2\pi}$. The $R_{km}(\rho,\phi)$ are suitably normalized but the overlap $\langle \psi\vert R_{km}\rangle$ depends on $k$, yet relative probabilities do not. In other words, for two different $R_{km}$, the overlap with your $\psi$ will be different but this does not affect the relative probabilities of finding the various $m$ states. $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 19, 2023 at 18:50
  • $\begingroup$ In other words, I could modify $C\to C_k$; I guess the very last step of finding $\vert C\vert^2$ must be incorrect although this does not affect the probabilities, i.e. the relative probabilities computed with different $k$'s remains the same so upon normalizing the probabilities so they sum to $1$ you still get an answer independent of $k$. $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 19, 2023 at 18:54

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

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