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?

The Nth Gryphon Number

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

1-probability to calculate two events in a row

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

Is CEO the "profession" with the most psychopaths?

In musical terms, what properties are varied by the human voice to produce different words / syllables?

How long can equipment go unused before powering up runs the risk of damage?

What does it mean that physics no longer uses mechanical models to describe phenomena?

Why is it faster to reheat something than it is to cook it?

What order were files/directories output in dir?

Semigroups with no morphisms between them

How can I set the aperture on my DSLR when it's attached to a telescope instead of a lens?

Co-worker has annoying ringtone

How were pictures turned from film to a big picture in a picture frame before digital scanning?

Do I really need to have a message in a novel to appeal to readers?

How does the math work when buying airline miles?

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

AppleTVs create a chatty alternate WiFi network

Can the Flaming Sphere spell be rammed into multiple Tiny creatures that are in the same 5-foot square?

How can I prevent/balance waiting and turtling as a response to cooldown mechanics

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

How often does castling occur in grandmaster games?

Is there hard evidence that the grant peer review system performs significantly better than random?

What initially awakened the Balrog?



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
    3 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
    3 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 3 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
    3 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
    3 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
3 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
3 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 21 mins 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

            Dapidodigma demeter Subspecies | Notae | Tabula navigationisDapidodigmaAfrotropical Butterflies: Lycaenidae - Subtribe IolainaAmplifica

            Constantinus Vanšenkin Nexus externi | Tabula navigationisБольшая российская энциклопедияAmplifica

            Gaius Norbanus Flaccus (consul 38 a.C.n.) Index De gente | De cursu honorum | Notae | Fontes | Si vis plura legere | Tabula navigationisHic legere potes