Time evolution of a Gaussian wave packet, why convert to k-space? Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Planned maintenance scheduled April 23, 2019 at 23:30 UTC (7:30pm US/Eastern) 2019 Moderator Election Q&A - Question CollectionWhy do we consider the evolution (usually in time) of a wave function?Time evolution of Gaussian wave packetTime evolution in Quantum Mechanics abstract state spaceTime reversal symmetry in the Schrodinger equation and evolution of wave packetIs the free particle Gaussian wavepacket in the Schwartz space?Convert time operator from momentum space to position spaceTransient simulation of a Gaussian wave packet using time dependent Liouville-von Neumann equation in center mass coordinates?Time evolution of squeezed statesHow big will the wave packet be?How to propagate Heller's model of the Gaussian Wave Packet?

Converted a Scalar function to a TVF function for parallel execution-Still running in Serial mode

Did Mueller's report provide an evidentiary basis for the claim of Russian govt election interference via social media?

How does the math work when buying airline miles?

How to compare two different files line by line in unix?

Why are vacuum tubes still used in amateur radios?

What does 丫 mean? 丫是什么意思?

Maximum summed subsequences with non-adjacent items

What makes a man succeed?

If Windows 7 doesn't support WSL, then what is "Subsystem for UNIX-based Applications"?

What's the meaning of "fortified infraction restraint"?

What is the meaning of 'breadth' in breadth first search?

How does Belgium enforce obligatory attendance in elections?

preposition before coffee

Lagrange four-squares theorem --- deterministic complexity

What does Turing mean by this statement?

Central Vacuuming: Is it worth it, and how does it compare to normal vacuuming?

Can a new player join a group only when a new campaign starts?

Is multiple magic items in one inherently imbalanced?

How to save space when writing equations with cases?

What is the difference between a "ranged attack" and a "ranged weapon attack"?

Should a wizard buy fine inks every time he want to copy spells into his spellbook?

How fail-safe is nr as stop bytes?

Trademark violation for app?

Is there any word for a place full of confusion?



Time evolution of a Gaussian wave packet, why convert to k-space?



Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara
Planned maintenance scheduled April 23, 2019 at 23:30 UTC (7:30pm US/Eastern)
2019 Moderator Election Q&A - Question CollectionWhy do we consider the evolution (usually in time) of a wave function?Time evolution of Gaussian wave packetTime evolution in Quantum Mechanics abstract state spaceTime reversal symmetry in the Schrodinger equation and evolution of wave packetIs the free particle Gaussian wavepacket in the Schwartz space?Convert time operator from momentum space to position spaceTransient simulation of a Gaussian wave packet using time dependent Liouville-von Neumann equation in center mass coordinates?Time evolution of squeezed statesHow big will the wave packet be?How to propagate Heller's model of the Gaussian Wave Packet?










3












$begingroup$


I'm trying to do a homework problem where I'm time evolving a Gaussian wave packet with a Hamiltonian of $ fracp^22m $



So if I have a Gaussian wave packet given by:



$$ Psi(x) = Ae^-alpha x^2 , .$$



I want to time evolve it, my first instinct would be to just tack on the time evolution term of $e^-fraciEthbar$.



However, in the solution it tells me that this is incorrect, and I first need to convert the wave function into k-space by using a Fourier transform due to the Hamiltonian being $ p^2/2m$. Can anyone tell me why I need to convert it to k-space first? In a finite well example with the same Hamiltonian we can just multiply the time evolution term to each term of the wave function. Why can't we can't do that to a Gaussian wave packet?










share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




M-B is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







$endgroup$







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Ask yourself this: why do you think you can tack on the time dependence? What reason do you have to think that's correct?
    $endgroup$
    – DanielSank
    4 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    And, more importantly, what value of the energy would you choose? Is your state an eigenstate of the hamiltonian, with a well-defined energy?
    $endgroup$
    – Emilio Pisanty
    3 hours ago















3












$begingroup$


I'm trying to do a homework problem where I'm time evolving a Gaussian wave packet with a Hamiltonian of $ fracp^22m $



So if I have a Gaussian wave packet given by:



$$ Psi(x) = Ae^-alpha x^2 , .$$



I want to time evolve it, my first instinct would be to just tack on the time evolution term of $e^-fraciEthbar$.



However, in the solution it tells me that this is incorrect, and I first need to convert the wave function into k-space by using a Fourier transform due to the Hamiltonian being $ p^2/2m$. Can anyone tell me why I need to convert it to k-space first? In a finite well example with the same Hamiltonian we can just multiply the time evolution term to each term of the wave function. Why can't we can't do that to a Gaussian wave packet?










share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




M-B is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







$endgroup$







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Ask yourself this: why do you think you can tack on the time dependence? What reason do you have to think that's correct?
    $endgroup$
    – DanielSank
    4 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    And, more importantly, what value of the energy would you choose? Is your state an eigenstate of the hamiltonian, with a well-defined energy?
    $endgroup$
    – Emilio Pisanty
    3 hours ago













3












3








3





$begingroup$


I'm trying to do a homework problem where I'm time evolving a Gaussian wave packet with a Hamiltonian of $ fracp^22m $



So if I have a Gaussian wave packet given by:



$$ Psi(x) = Ae^-alpha x^2 , .$$



I want to time evolve it, my first instinct would be to just tack on the time evolution term of $e^-fraciEthbar$.



However, in the solution it tells me that this is incorrect, and I first need to convert the wave function into k-space by using a Fourier transform due to the Hamiltonian being $ p^2/2m$. Can anyone tell me why I need to convert it to k-space first? In a finite well example with the same Hamiltonian we can just multiply the time evolution term to each term of the wave function. Why can't we can't do that to a Gaussian wave packet?










share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




M-B is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







$endgroup$




I'm trying to do a homework problem where I'm time evolving a Gaussian wave packet with a Hamiltonian of $ fracp^22m $



So if I have a Gaussian wave packet given by:



$$ Psi(x) = Ae^-alpha x^2 , .$$



I want to time evolve it, my first instinct would be to just tack on the time evolution term of $e^-fraciEthbar$.



However, in the solution it tells me that this is incorrect, and I first need to convert the wave function into k-space by using a Fourier transform due to the Hamiltonian being $ p^2/2m$. Can anyone tell me why I need to convert it to k-space first? In a finite well example with the same Hamiltonian we can just multiply the time evolution term to each term of the wave function. Why can't we can't do that to a Gaussian wave packet?







quantum-mechanics homework-and-exercises






share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




M-B is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




M-B is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited 4 hours ago









DanielSank

17.9k45178




17.9k45178






New contributor




M-B is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









asked 4 hours ago









M-BM-B

182




182




New contributor




M-B is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





M-B is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






M-B is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Ask yourself this: why do you think you can tack on the time dependence? What reason do you have to think that's correct?
    $endgroup$
    – DanielSank
    4 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    And, more importantly, what value of the energy would you choose? Is your state an eigenstate of the hamiltonian, with a well-defined energy?
    $endgroup$
    – Emilio Pisanty
    3 hours ago












  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Ask yourself this: why do you think you can tack on the time dependence? What reason do you have to think that's correct?
    $endgroup$
    – DanielSank
    4 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    And, more importantly, what value of the energy would you choose? Is your state an eigenstate of the hamiltonian, with a well-defined energy?
    $endgroup$
    – Emilio Pisanty
    3 hours ago







1




1




$begingroup$
Ask yourself this: why do you think you can tack on the time dependence? What reason do you have to think that's correct?
$endgroup$
– DanielSank
4 hours ago




$begingroup$
Ask yourself this: why do you think you can tack on the time dependence? What reason do you have to think that's correct?
$endgroup$
– DanielSank
4 hours ago




1




1




$begingroup$
And, more importantly, what value of the energy would you choose? Is your state an eigenstate of the hamiltonian, with a well-defined energy?
$endgroup$
– Emilio Pisanty
3 hours ago




$begingroup$
And, more importantly, what value of the energy would you choose? Is your state an eigenstate of the hamiltonian, with a well-defined energy?
$endgroup$
– Emilio Pisanty
3 hours ago










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















3












$begingroup$

Tacking on a term $e^-iEt/hbar$ is the correct interpretation of the Schrödinger equation $$ihbar |partial_t Psirangle = hat H |Psirangle$$only for those eigenstates for which $$hat H |Psirangle = E|Psirangle,$$as otherwise you do not know what value of $E$ should be used to substitute. Hypothetically you can still do it, but you pay a very painful cost that the $E$ is in fact a full-fledged operator and you therefore need to exponentiate an operator, which is nontrivial.



If this is all sounding a bit complicated, please remember that QM is just linear algebra in funny hats, and so you could get an intuition for similar systems by just using some matrices and vectors, for example looking at $$ihbar beginbmatrix f'(t) \ g'(t) endbmatrix = epsilon beginbmatrix 0&1\1&0endbmatrix beginbmatrix f(t) \ g(t)endbmatrix.$$One can in fact express this as $$beginbmatrixf(t)\g(t)endbmatrix = e^-ihat H t/hbar beginbmatrix f_0\ g_0endbmatrix,$$ but one has to exponentiate this matrix. That is not hard because it squares to the identity matrix, causing a simple expansion, $$beginbmatrixf(t)\g(t)endbmatrix = cos(epsilon t/hbar) beginbmatrix f_0\ g_0endbmatrix - i sin(epsilon t/hbar) beginbmatrix g_0\ f_0endbmatrix. $$ One can then confirm that indeed this satisfies the Schrödinger equation given above. One can also immediately see that this does not directly have the form $e^-iepsilon t/hbar [f_0; g_0],$ but how could it? That would be a different Hamiltonian $hat H = epsilon I.$



But, with some creativity, one can see that if $f_0 = g_0$ those two remaining vectors would be parallel, or if $f_0 = -g_0$, and one can indeed rewrite this solution in terms of those eigenvectors of the original $hat H$ as $$beginbmatrixf(t)\g(t)endbmatrix = e^-iepsilon t/hbar alpha beginbmatrix 1\ 1endbmatrix + e^iepsilon t/hbar beta beginbmatrix -1\ 1endbmatrix. $$ So the trick to more easily finding general solutions is to find these eigenvectors first and then form a general linear combination of those eigenvectors once they have been multiplied individually by their time dependence. Then for a given initial state, we need to find the $alpha$ and $beta$ terms: in this case it is simple enough by looking at $t=0$ where $alpha - beta = f_0$ while $alpha + beta = g_0.$



Similarly for your Hamiltonian $hat H = hat p^2/(2m) = -frachbar^22mfracpartial^2~partial x^2,$ you know that the eigenvectors are plane waves, $$phi_k(x) = e^ikx.$$You know that you can then add time dependence to them in the obvious way, $$Phi_k(x, t) = e^i(k x - omega_k t),$$ where of course $$hbar omega_k = frachbar^2k^22m.$$ So the eigenvector story is just beautifully simple for you to do, all you need is the ability to take derivatives of exponentials.



The part of the story that is more complicated is assembling an arbitrary $psi(x)$ as a sum of these exponentials. However while it is complicated it is not impossible: you know from Fourier's theorem that $$psi(x) = frac12piint_-infty^infty dk ~e^i k x int_-infty^infty dxi ~e^-ikxi ~psi(xi).$$ Let your eyes glaze over the second integral and see it as just what it is, some $psi[k]$ coefficent in $k$-space. What we have here then is a sum—a continuous sum, but still a sum!—of coefficients times eigenfunctions:$$psi(x) = int_-infty^inftyfracdk~psi[k]2pi~phi_k(x).$$



And we know how to Schrödinger-ize such a sum, we just add $e^-iomega_k t$ terms to each of the eigenfunctions, turning $phi_k$ into $Phi_k.$ So we get,
$$Psi(x, t) = frac12piint_-infty^infty dk ~e^i (k x - omega_k t) ~psi[k].$$
You do not have to do it this way, you can try to do some sort of $$expleft[-i frachbar t2m fracpartial^2~partial x^2right] e^-a x^2$$
monstrosity, expanding the operator in a power series and then seeing whether there are patterns you can use among the $n^textth$ derivatives of Gaussians to simplify. But the operator expansion way looks really pretty difficult, while the eigenvector way is really easy.



The reason it is really easy is that both $hat H$ and $ihbar partial_t$ are linear operators: they distribute over sums. So if you are still feeling queasy about this procedure, convince yourself by just writing it out: calculate this value $$0 = left(ihbar fracpartial~partial t + frachbar^22mfracpartial^2~partial x^2right) frac12pi int_-infty^infty dk~psi[k] ~e^i (k x - omega_k t).$$ Notice that it holds with pretty much no restriction on the actual form of $psi[k]$ so that you only need to choose coefficients $psi[k]$ such that $Psi(x, 0) = psi(x).$






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













    Your Answer








    StackExchange.ready(function()
    var channelOptions =
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "151"
    ;
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
    createEditor();
    );

    else
    createEditor();

    );

    function createEditor()
    StackExchange.prepareEditor(
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: false,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: null,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader:
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    ,
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    );



    );






    M-B is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.









    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function ()
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f473865%2ftime-evolution-of-a-gaussian-wave-packet-why-convert-to-k-space%23new-answer', 'question_page');

    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    1 Answer
    1






    active

    oldest

    votes








    1 Answer
    1






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    3












    $begingroup$

    Tacking on a term $e^-iEt/hbar$ is the correct interpretation of the Schrödinger equation $$ihbar |partial_t Psirangle = hat H |Psirangle$$only for those eigenstates for which $$hat H |Psirangle = E|Psirangle,$$as otherwise you do not know what value of $E$ should be used to substitute. Hypothetically you can still do it, but you pay a very painful cost that the $E$ is in fact a full-fledged operator and you therefore need to exponentiate an operator, which is nontrivial.



    If this is all sounding a bit complicated, please remember that QM is just linear algebra in funny hats, and so you could get an intuition for similar systems by just using some matrices and vectors, for example looking at $$ihbar beginbmatrix f'(t) \ g'(t) endbmatrix = epsilon beginbmatrix 0&1\1&0endbmatrix beginbmatrix f(t) \ g(t)endbmatrix.$$One can in fact express this as $$beginbmatrixf(t)\g(t)endbmatrix = e^-ihat H t/hbar beginbmatrix f_0\ g_0endbmatrix,$$ but one has to exponentiate this matrix. That is not hard because it squares to the identity matrix, causing a simple expansion, $$beginbmatrixf(t)\g(t)endbmatrix = cos(epsilon t/hbar) beginbmatrix f_0\ g_0endbmatrix - i sin(epsilon t/hbar) beginbmatrix g_0\ f_0endbmatrix. $$ One can then confirm that indeed this satisfies the Schrödinger equation given above. One can also immediately see that this does not directly have the form $e^-iepsilon t/hbar [f_0; g_0],$ but how could it? That would be a different Hamiltonian $hat H = epsilon I.$



    But, with some creativity, one can see that if $f_0 = g_0$ those two remaining vectors would be parallel, or if $f_0 = -g_0$, and one can indeed rewrite this solution in terms of those eigenvectors of the original $hat H$ as $$beginbmatrixf(t)\g(t)endbmatrix = e^-iepsilon t/hbar alpha beginbmatrix 1\ 1endbmatrix + e^iepsilon t/hbar beta beginbmatrix -1\ 1endbmatrix. $$ So the trick to more easily finding general solutions is to find these eigenvectors first and then form a general linear combination of those eigenvectors once they have been multiplied individually by their time dependence. Then for a given initial state, we need to find the $alpha$ and $beta$ terms: in this case it is simple enough by looking at $t=0$ where $alpha - beta = f_0$ while $alpha + beta = g_0.$



    Similarly for your Hamiltonian $hat H = hat p^2/(2m) = -frachbar^22mfracpartial^2~partial x^2,$ you know that the eigenvectors are plane waves, $$phi_k(x) = e^ikx.$$You know that you can then add time dependence to them in the obvious way, $$Phi_k(x, t) = e^i(k x - omega_k t),$$ where of course $$hbar omega_k = frachbar^2k^22m.$$ So the eigenvector story is just beautifully simple for you to do, all you need is the ability to take derivatives of exponentials.



    The part of the story that is more complicated is assembling an arbitrary $psi(x)$ as a sum of these exponentials. However while it is complicated it is not impossible: you know from Fourier's theorem that $$psi(x) = frac12piint_-infty^infty dk ~e^i k x int_-infty^infty dxi ~e^-ikxi ~psi(xi).$$ Let your eyes glaze over the second integral and see it as just what it is, some $psi[k]$ coefficent in $k$-space. What we have here then is a sum—a continuous sum, but still a sum!—of coefficients times eigenfunctions:$$psi(x) = int_-infty^inftyfracdk~psi[k]2pi~phi_k(x).$$



    And we know how to Schrödinger-ize such a sum, we just add $e^-iomega_k t$ terms to each of the eigenfunctions, turning $phi_k$ into $Phi_k.$ So we get,
    $$Psi(x, t) = frac12piint_-infty^infty dk ~e^i (k x - omega_k t) ~psi[k].$$
    You do not have to do it this way, you can try to do some sort of $$expleft[-i frachbar t2m fracpartial^2~partial x^2right] e^-a x^2$$
    monstrosity, expanding the operator in a power series and then seeing whether there are patterns you can use among the $n^textth$ derivatives of Gaussians to simplify. But the operator expansion way looks really pretty difficult, while the eigenvector way is really easy.



    The reason it is really easy is that both $hat H$ and $ihbar partial_t$ are linear operators: they distribute over sums. So if you are still feeling queasy about this procedure, convince yourself by just writing it out: calculate this value $$0 = left(ihbar fracpartial~partial t + frachbar^22mfracpartial^2~partial x^2right) frac12pi int_-infty^infty dk~psi[k] ~e^i (k x - omega_k t).$$ Notice that it holds with pretty much no restriction on the actual form of $psi[k]$ so that you only need to choose coefficients $psi[k]$ such that $Psi(x, 0) = psi(x).$






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$

















      3












      $begingroup$

      Tacking on a term $e^-iEt/hbar$ is the correct interpretation of the Schrödinger equation $$ihbar |partial_t Psirangle = hat H |Psirangle$$only for those eigenstates for which $$hat H |Psirangle = E|Psirangle,$$as otherwise you do not know what value of $E$ should be used to substitute. Hypothetically you can still do it, but you pay a very painful cost that the $E$ is in fact a full-fledged operator and you therefore need to exponentiate an operator, which is nontrivial.



      If this is all sounding a bit complicated, please remember that QM is just linear algebra in funny hats, and so you could get an intuition for similar systems by just using some matrices and vectors, for example looking at $$ihbar beginbmatrix f'(t) \ g'(t) endbmatrix = epsilon beginbmatrix 0&1\1&0endbmatrix beginbmatrix f(t) \ g(t)endbmatrix.$$One can in fact express this as $$beginbmatrixf(t)\g(t)endbmatrix = e^-ihat H t/hbar beginbmatrix f_0\ g_0endbmatrix,$$ but one has to exponentiate this matrix. That is not hard because it squares to the identity matrix, causing a simple expansion, $$beginbmatrixf(t)\g(t)endbmatrix = cos(epsilon t/hbar) beginbmatrix f_0\ g_0endbmatrix - i sin(epsilon t/hbar) beginbmatrix g_0\ f_0endbmatrix. $$ One can then confirm that indeed this satisfies the Schrödinger equation given above. One can also immediately see that this does not directly have the form $e^-iepsilon t/hbar [f_0; g_0],$ but how could it? That would be a different Hamiltonian $hat H = epsilon I.$



      But, with some creativity, one can see that if $f_0 = g_0$ those two remaining vectors would be parallel, or if $f_0 = -g_0$, and one can indeed rewrite this solution in terms of those eigenvectors of the original $hat H$ as $$beginbmatrixf(t)\g(t)endbmatrix = e^-iepsilon t/hbar alpha beginbmatrix 1\ 1endbmatrix + e^iepsilon t/hbar beta beginbmatrix -1\ 1endbmatrix. $$ So the trick to more easily finding general solutions is to find these eigenvectors first and then form a general linear combination of those eigenvectors once they have been multiplied individually by their time dependence. Then for a given initial state, we need to find the $alpha$ and $beta$ terms: in this case it is simple enough by looking at $t=0$ where $alpha - beta = f_0$ while $alpha + beta = g_0.$



      Similarly for your Hamiltonian $hat H = hat p^2/(2m) = -frachbar^22mfracpartial^2~partial x^2,$ you know that the eigenvectors are plane waves, $$phi_k(x) = e^ikx.$$You know that you can then add time dependence to them in the obvious way, $$Phi_k(x, t) = e^i(k x - omega_k t),$$ where of course $$hbar omega_k = frachbar^2k^22m.$$ So the eigenvector story is just beautifully simple for you to do, all you need is the ability to take derivatives of exponentials.



      The part of the story that is more complicated is assembling an arbitrary $psi(x)$ as a sum of these exponentials. However while it is complicated it is not impossible: you know from Fourier's theorem that $$psi(x) = frac12piint_-infty^infty dk ~e^i k x int_-infty^infty dxi ~e^-ikxi ~psi(xi).$$ Let your eyes glaze over the second integral and see it as just what it is, some $psi[k]$ coefficent in $k$-space. What we have here then is a sum—a continuous sum, but still a sum!—of coefficients times eigenfunctions:$$psi(x) = int_-infty^inftyfracdk~psi[k]2pi~phi_k(x).$$



      And we know how to Schrödinger-ize such a sum, we just add $e^-iomega_k t$ terms to each of the eigenfunctions, turning $phi_k$ into $Phi_k.$ So we get,
      $$Psi(x, t) = frac12piint_-infty^infty dk ~e^i (k x - omega_k t) ~psi[k].$$
      You do not have to do it this way, you can try to do some sort of $$expleft[-i frachbar t2m fracpartial^2~partial x^2right] e^-a x^2$$
      monstrosity, expanding the operator in a power series and then seeing whether there are patterns you can use among the $n^textth$ derivatives of Gaussians to simplify. But the operator expansion way looks really pretty difficult, while the eigenvector way is really easy.



      The reason it is really easy is that both $hat H$ and $ihbar partial_t$ are linear operators: they distribute over sums. So if you are still feeling queasy about this procedure, convince yourself by just writing it out: calculate this value $$0 = left(ihbar fracpartial~partial t + frachbar^22mfracpartial^2~partial x^2right) frac12pi int_-infty^infty dk~psi[k] ~e^i (k x - omega_k t).$$ Notice that it holds with pretty much no restriction on the actual form of $psi[k]$ so that you only need to choose coefficients $psi[k]$ such that $Psi(x, 0) = psi(x).$






      share|cite|improve this answer











      $endgroup$















        3












        3








        3





        $begingroup$

        Tacking on a term $e^-iEt/hbar$ is the correct interpretation of the Schrödinger equation $$ihbar |partial_t Psirangle = hat H |Psirangle$$only for those eigenstates for which $$hat H |Psirangle = E|Psirangle,$$as otherwise you do not know what value of $E$ should be used to substitute. Hypothetically you can still do it, but you pay a very painful cost that the $E$ is in fact a full-fledged operator and you therefore need to exponentiate an operator, which is nontrivial.



        If this is all sounding a bit complicated, please remember that QM is just linear algebra in funny hats, and so you could get an intuition for similar systems by just using some matrices and vectors, for example looking at $$ihbar beginbmatrix f'(t) \ g'(t) endbmatrix = epsilon beginbmatrix 0&1\1&0endbmatrix beginbmatrix f(t) \ g(t)endbmatrix.$$One can in fact express this as $$beginbmatrixf(t)\g(t)endbmatrix = e^-ihat H t/hbar beginbmatrix f_0\ g_0endbmatrix,$$ but one has to exponentiate this matrix. That is not hard because it squares to the identity matrix, causing a simple expansion, $$beginbmatrixf(t)\g(t)endbmatrix = cos(epsilon t/hbar) beginbmatrix f_0\ g_0endbmatrix - i sin(epsilon t/hbar) beginbmatrix g_0\ f_0endbmatrix. $$ One can then confirm that indeed this satisfies the Schrödinger equation given above. One can also immediately see that this does not directly have the form $e^-iepsilon t/hbar [f_0; g_0],$ but how could it? That would be a different Hamiltonian $hat H = epsilon I.$



        But, with some creativity, one can see that if $f_0 = g_0$ those two remaining vectors would be parallel, or if $f_0 = -g_0$, and one can indeed rewrite this solution in terms of those eigenvectors of the original $hat H$ as $$beginbmatrixf(t)\g(t)endbmatrix = e^-iepsilon t/hbar alpha beginbmatrix 1\ 1endbmatrix + e^iepsilon t/hbar beta beginbmatrix -1\ 1endbmatrix. $$ So the trick to more easily finding general solutions is to find these eigenvectors first and then form a general linear combination of those eigenvectors once they have been multiplied individually by their time dependence. Then for a given initial state, we need to find the $alpha$ and $beta$ terms: in this case it is simple enough by looking at $t=0$ where $alpha - beta = f_0$ while $alpha + beta = g_0.$



        Similarly for your Hamiltonian $hat H = hat p^2/(2m) = -frachbar^22mfracpartial^2~partial x^2,$ you know that the eigenvectors are plane waves, $$phi_k(x) = e^ikx.$$You know that you can then add time dependence to them in the obvious way, $$Phi_k(x, t) = e^i(k x - omega_k t),$$ where of course $$hbar omega_k = frachbar^2k^22m.$$ So the eigenvector story is just beautifully simple for you to do, all you need is the ability to take derivatives of exponentials.



        The part of the story that is more complicated is assembling an arbitrary $psi(x)$ as a sum of these exponentials. However while it is complicated it is not impossible: you know from Fourier's theorem that $$psi(x) = frac12piint_-infty^infty dk ~e^i k x int_-infty^infty dxi ~e^-ikxi ~psi(xi).$$ Let your eyes glaze over the second integral and see it as just what it is, some $psi[k]$ coefficent in $k$-space. What we have here then is a sum—a continuous sum, but still a sum!—of coefficients times eigenfunctions:$$psi(x) = int_-infty^inftyfracdk~psi[k]2pi~phi_k(x).$$



        And we know how to Schrödinger-ize such a sum, we just add $e^-iomega_k t$ terms to each of the eigenfunctions, turning $phi_k$ into $Phi_k.$ So we get,
        $$Psi(x, t) = frac12piint_-infty^infty dk ~e^i (k x - omega_k t) ~psi[k].$$
        You do not have to do it this way, you can try to do some sort of $$expleft[-i frachbar t2m fracpartial^2~partial x^2right] e^-a x^2$$
        monstrosity, expanding the operator in a power series and then seeing whether there are patterns you can use among the $n^textth$ derivatives of Gaussians to simplify. But the operator expansion way looks really pretty difficult, while the eigenvector way is really easy.



        The reason it is really easy is that both $hat H$ and $ihbar partial_t$ are linear operators: they distribute over sums. So if you are still feeling queasy about this procedure, convince yourself by just writing it out: calculate this value $$0 = left(ihbar fracpartial~partial t + frachbar^22mfracpartial^2~partial x^2right) frac12pi int_-infty^infty dk~psi[k] ~e^i (k x - omega_k t).$$ Notice that it holds with pretty much no restriction on the actual form of $psi[k]$ so that you only need to choose coefficients $psi[k]$ such that $Psi(x, 0) = psi(x).$






        share|cite|improve this answer











        $endgroup$



        Tacking on a term $e^-iEt/hbar$ is the correct interpretation of the Schrödinger equation $$ihbar |partial_t Psirangle = hat H |Psirangle$$only for those eigenstates for which $$hat H |Psirangle = E|Psirangle,$$as otherwise you do not know what value of $E$ should be used to substitute. Hypothetically you can still do it, but you pay a very painful cost that the $E$ is in fact a full-fledged operator and you therefore need to exponentiate an operator, which is nontrivial.



        If this is all sounding a bit complicated, please remember that QM is just linear algebra in funny hats, and so you could get an intuition for similar systems by just using some matrices and vectors, for example looking at $$ihbar beginbmatrix f'(t) \ g'(t) endbmatrix = epsilon beginbmatrix 0&1\1&0endbmatrix beginbmatrix f(t) \ g(t)endbmatrix.$$One can in fact express this as $$beginbmatrixf(t)\g(t)endbmatrix = e^-ihat H t/hbar beginbmatrix f_0\ g_0endbmatrix,$$ but one has to exponentiate this matrix. That is not hard because it squares to the identity matrix, causing a simple expansion, $$beginbmatrixf(t)\g(t)endbmatrix = cos(epsilon t/hbar) beginbmatrix f_0\ g_0endbmatrix - i sin(epsilon t/hbar) beginbmatrix g_0\ f_0endbmatrix. $$ One can then confirm that indeed this satisfies the Schrödinger equation given above. One can also immediately see that this does not directly have the form $e^-iepsilon t/hbar [f_0; g_0],$ but how could it? That would be a different Hamiltonian $hat H = epsilon I.$



        But, with some creativity, one can see that if $f_0 = g_0$ those two remaining vectors would be parallel, or if $f_0 = -g_0$, and one can indeed rewrite this solution in terms of those eigenvectors of the original $hat H$ as $$beginbmatrixf(t)\g(t)endbmatrix = e^-iepsilon t/hbar alpha beginbmatrix 1\ 1endbmatrix + e^iepsilon t/hbar beta beginbmatrix -1\ 1endbmatrix. $$ So the trick to more easily finding general solutions is to find these eigenvectors first and then form a general linear combination of those eigenvectors once they have been multiplied individually by their time dependence. Then for a given initial state, we need to find the $alpha$ and $beta$ terms: in this case it is simple enough by looking at $t=0$ where $alpha - beta = f_0$ while $alpha + beta = g_0.$



        Similarly for your Hamiltonian $hat H = hat p^2/(2m) = -frachbar^22mfracpartial^2~partial x^2,$ you know that the eigenvectors are plane waves, $$phi_k(x) = e^ikx.$$You know that you can then add time dependence to them in the obvious way, $$Phi_k(x, t) = e^i(k x - omega_k t),$$ where of course $$hbar omega_k = frachbar^2k^22m.$$ So the eigenvector story is just beautifully simple for you to do, all you need is the ability to take derivatives of exponentials.



        The part of the story that is more complicated is assembling an arbitrary $psi(x)$ as a sum of these exponentials. However while it is complicated it is not impossible: you know from Fourier's theorem that $$psi(x) = frac12piint_-infty^infty dk ~e^i k x int_-infty^infty dxi ~e^-ikxi ~psi(xi).$$ Let your eyes glaze over the second integral and see it as just what it is, some $psi[k]$ coefficent in $k$-space. What we have here then is a sum—a continuous sum, but still a sum!—of coefficients times eigenfunctions:$$psi(x) = int_-infty^inftyfracdk~psi[k]2pi~phi_k(x).$$



        And we know how to Schrödinger-ize such a sum, we just add $e^-iomega_k t$ terms to each of the eigenfunctions, turning $phi_k$ into $Phi_k.$ So we get,
        $$Psi(x, t) = frac12piint_-infty^infty dk ~e^i (k x - omega_k t) ~psi[k].$$
        You do not have to do it this way, you can try to do some sort of $$expleft[-i frachbar t2m fracpartial^2~partial x^2right] e^-a x^2$$
        monstrosity, expanding the operator in a power series and then seeing whether there are patterns you can use among the $n^textth$ derivatives of Gaussians to simplify. But the operator expansion way looks really pretty difficult, while the eigenvector way is really easy.



        The reason it is really easy is that both $hat H$ and $ihbar partial_t$ are linear operators: they distribute over sums. So if you are still feeling queasy about this procedure, convince yourself by just writing it out: calculate this value $$0 = left(ihbar fracpartial~partial t + frachbar^22mfracpartial^2~partial x^2right) frac12pi int_-infty^infty dk~psi[k] ~e^i (k x - omega_k t).$$ Notice that it holds with pretty much no restriction on the actual form of $psi[k]$ so that you only need to choose coefficients $psi[k]$ such that $Psi(x, 0) = psi(x).$







        share|cite|improve this answer














        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer








        edited 1 hour ago

























        answered 2 hours ago









        CR DrostCR Drost

        23.2k11964




        23.2k11964




















            M-B is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.









            draft saved

            draft discarded


















            M-B is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












            M-B is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.











            M-B is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.














            Thanks for contributing an answer to Physics Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid


            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

            Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function ()
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f473865%2ftime-evolution-of-a-gaussian-wave-packet-why-convert-to-k-space%23new-answer', 'question_page');

            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            Canceling a color specificationRandomly assigning color to Graphics3D objects?Default color for Filling in Mathematica 9Coloring specific elements of sets with a prime modified order in an array plotHow to pick a color differing significantly from the colors already in a given color list?Detection of the text colorColor numbers based on their valueCan color schemes for use with ColorData include opacity specification?My dynamic color schemes

            Invision Community Contents History See also References External links Navigation menuProprietaryinvisioncommunity.comIPS Community ForumsIPS Community Forumsthis blog entry"License Changes, IP.Board 3.4, and the Future""Interview -- Matt Mecham of Ibforums""CEO Invision Power Board, Matt Mecham Is a Liar, Thief!"IPB License Explanation 1.3, 1.3.1, 2.0, and 2.1ArchivedSecurity Fixes, Updates And Enhancements For IPB 1.3.1Archived"New Demo Accounts - Invision Power Services"the original"New Default Skin"the original"Invision Power Board 3.0.0 and Applications Released"the original"Archived copy"the original"Perpetual licenses being done away with""Release Notes - Invision Power Services""Introducing: IPS Community Suite 4!"Invision Community Release Notes

            199年 目錄 大件事 到箇年出世嗰人 到箇年死嗰人 節慶、風俗習慣 導覽選單