0
$\begingroup$

I'm currently trying to understand expectation values within Quantum Mechanics. I have a few questions that I could need a little bit of help with understanding how to interpret and how to further do calculations.

Notations and other important variables for this example:
A free particle has the wave function $\Psi(\vec{r}) = Ne^{-r\gamma}$ where $N$ is a normalisation constant, $\gamma$ is a positive real parameter and $$r = \sqrt{x^2+y^2+z^2}$$ is the distance from the origin of the Cartesian coordinate system.

(1) Since both r and $\gamma$ are positive and real, does this mean that $\Psi(\vec{r})^{\ast}\Psi(\vec{r})$ is just the square of $\Psi(\vec{r})$? I have this thought since the complex conjugate of a real function should be equal to the original function, correct?

(2) When calculating the expecation value $<\vec{r}>_{op}$, is it correct to assume that $$<\vec{r}>_{op} = (<x>_{op}, <y>_{op}, <z>_{op})~? $$ And if that is the case, can I then for example assume that when calculating $<x>_{op}$ that $y=z=0$ and therefore $r=x$ (see definition of r under Notations), and then rewrite my integral as: $$<x>_{op} = \int_{0}^{\infty} \Psi^\ast(\vec{r})x\Psi(\vec{r}) \,dx~?$$

This should in theory, if my assumptions are correct, correspond in the following representation of $<\vec{r}>_{op}$ as: $$[(\int_{0}^{\infty} \Psi^\ast(\vec{r})x\Psi(\vec{r}) \,dx), (\int_{0}^{\infty} \Psi^\ast(\vec{r})y\Psi(\vec{r}) \,dy), (\int_{0}^{\infty} \Psi^\ast(\vec{r})z\Psi(\vec{r}) \,dz)],$$ or have I understood this wrongly?

Thanks for your help and patience, please let me know if anything is unclear so that I can have a look at it and explain it in a better way!

Edit 1: changed wave function from $\Psi(\vec{r}) = Ne^{r\gamma}$ to $\Psi(\vec{r}) = Ne^{-r\gamma}$ due to writing out the wrong wave function by accident.

$\endgroup$
5
  • $\begingroup$ While answers of the form "plane waves are not normalizable" are technically correct, you still have to learn how to deal with plane waves because they are actually far more important in physics than bound solutions. See e.g. physics.stackexchange.com/q/165373 for a few pointers of how to deal with the problem. The "obsession" of non-relativistic quantum mechanics with finite, nicely normalizable systems is more of an educational artifact: it's relatively easy to teach compared to the real problem. $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 24, 2023 at 16:49
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Are you sure the wave function wasn’t specified as $Ne^{-\gamma r}$? As written, the problem doesn’t make sense. $\endgroup$
    – Ghoster
    Commented Apr 24, 2023 at 17:32
  • $\begingroup$ I just edited my post: the wave function did indeed contain a minus sign in the exponential. I must've missed it while writing this post somehow. Does this minus sign impact the calculations in any way? $\endgroup$
    – Zorbakk
    Commented Apr 24, 2023 at 18:06
  • $\begingroup$ Does this minus sign impact the calculations in any way? Yes. It makes them give sensible (i.e., finite) results. $\endgroup$
    – Ghoster
    Commented Apr 24, 2023 at 22:18
  • $\begingroup$ Even with the negative sign, the question still doesn’t make sense. $Ne^{-\gamma r}$ is not the wave function of a free particle. $\endgroup$
    – Ghoster
    Commented Apr 24, 2023 at 22:21

1 Answer 1

1
$\begingroup$

A free particle has the wave function $\Psi(\vec{r}) = Ne^{r\gamma}$ where N is a normalisation constant, $\gamma$ is a positive real parameter and $r = \sqrt{x^2+y^2+z^2}$ is the distance from the origin of the Cartesian coordinate system.

This function is clearly non-normalizable, and so is not a valid wavefunction for a quantum mechanical particle.

  1. Yes
  2. Yes - when we talk about $\langle \vec r \rangle$, we mean the list $\big(\langle x\rangle,\langle y\rangle,\langle z\rangle\big)$. No, you cannot make that assumption - the integrals over $x$ and $y$ must be performed as usual, i.e. $$\langle X \rangle_\psi = \int_{-\infty}^\infty\mathrm dx \int_{-\infty}^\infty \mathrm dy \int_{-\infty}^\infty \mathrm dz \ x |\psi(x)|^2$$ Of course, since your proposed wavefunction is not normalizable, you won't get finite answers for these anyway.
$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you for your answer, you made it very clear for me. I did realize however as other people have pointed out that I did forget to include a minus sign in front of $r\gamma$, would this change the outcome somehow? $\endgroup$
    – Zorbakk
    Commented Apr 24, 2023 at 18:02
  • $\begingroup$ @Zorbakk Yes - that state is normalizable, and the expected values in question would all be finite (and zero, unsurprisingly, since the wavefunction is spherically symmetric). It is not an eigenstate of the free-particle Hamiltonian (which you can easily check), but that's okay - it only means that the wavefunction will change non-trivially with time. $\endgroup$
    – J. Murray
    Commented Apr 24, 2023 at 22:32
  • $\begingroup$ I see. Thank you for your very concrete answer. I have one more question though. You said that the wave function is spherically symmetric, is there a way to check this easily or do I just have to calculate the integral when in spherical coordinates? $\endgroup$
    – Zorbakk
    Commented Apr 25, 2023 at 9:27
  • $\begingroup$ @Zorbakk I mean, you could simply observe that the integrand doesn't have any angles in it. It depends only on $r$. $\endgroup$
    – J. Murray
    Commented Apr 25, 2023 at 18:18

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.