Is a bound state a stationary state?
$begingroup$
In Shankar's discussion on the 1D infinite square well in Principles of Quantum Mechanics (2nd edition), he made the following statement:
Now $langle P rangle = 0$ in any bound state for the following reason. Since a bound state is a stationary state, $langle P rangle$ is time independent. If this $langle Prangle ne 0$, the particle must (in the average sense) drift either to the right or to the left and eventually escape to infinity, which cannot happen in a bound state.
The final sentence makes sense to me, but his reasoning in the second sentence does not. Aren't bound states and stationary states entirely different things? Does the one in fact imply the other?
quantum-mechanics hilbert-space terminology definition quantum-states
edited 3 hours ago
Qmechanic♦
106k121961226
asked 4 hours ago
J-JJ-J
586
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
In Shankar's discussion on the 1D infinite square well in Principles of Quantum Mechanics (2nd edition), he made the following statement:
Now $langle P rangle = 0$ in any bound state for the following reason. Since a bound state is a stationary state, $langle P rangle$ is time independent. If this $langle Prangle ne 0$, the particle must (in the average sense) drift either to the right or to the left and eventually escape to infinity, which cannot happen in a bound state.
The final sentence makes sense to me, but his reasoning in the second sentence does not. Aren't bound states and stationary states entirely different things? Does the one in fact imply the other?
quantum-mechanics hilbert-space terminology definition quantum-states
edited 3 hours ago
Qmechanic♦
106k121961226
asked 4 hours ago
J-JJ-J
586
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
I find that puzzling too because I would think that a state moving around in a potential is still a bound state. I guess Shankar is just using the words in a particular way.
$endgroup$
– DanielSank
4 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
In Shankar's discussion on the 1D infinite square well in Principles of Quantum Mechanics (2nd edition), he made the following statement:
Now $langle P rangle = 0$ in any bound state for the following reason. Since a bound state is a stationary state, $langle P rangle$ is time independent. If this $langle Prangle ne 0$, the particle must (in the average sense) drift either to the right or to the left and eventually escape to infinity, which cannot happen in a bound state.
The final sentence makes sense to me, but his reasoning in the second sentence does not. Aren't bound states and stationary states entirely different things? Does the one in fact imply the other?
quantum-mechanics hilbert-space terminology definition quantum-states
edited 3 hours ago
Qmechanic♦
106k121961226
asked 4 hours ago
J-JJ-J
586
$endgroup$
In Shankar's discussion on the 1D infinite square well in Principles of Quantum Mechanics (2nd edition), he made the following statement:
Now $langle P rangle = 0$ in any bound state for the following reason. Since a bound state is a stationary state, $langle P rangle$ is time independent. If this $langle Prangle ne 0$, the particle must (in the average sense) drift either to the right or to the left and eventually escape to infinity, which cannot happen in a bound state.
The final sentence makes sense to me, but his reasoning in the second sentence does not. Aren't bound states and stationary states entirely different things? Does the one in fact imply the other?
quantum-mechanics hilbert-space terminology definition quantum-states
quantum-mechanics hilbert-space terminology definition quantum-states
edited 3 hours ago
Qmechanic♦
106k121961226
asked 4 hours ago
J-JJ-J
586
edited 3 hours ago
Qmechanic♦
106k121961226
asked 4 hours ago
J-JJ-J
586
edited 3 hours ago
Qmechanic♦
106k121961226
edited 3 hours ago
Qmechanic♦
106k121961226
edited 3 hours ago
Qmechanic♦
106k121961226
106k121961226
asked 4 hours ago
J-JJ-J
586
asked 4 hours ago
J-JJ-J
586
asked 4 hours ago
J-JJ-J
586
586
2
$begingroup$
I find that puzzling too because I would think that a state moving around in a potential is still a bound state. I guess Shankar is just using the words in a particular way.
$endgroup$
– DanielSank
4 hours ago
add a comment |
2
$begingroup$
I find that puzzling too because I would think that a state moving around in a potential is still a bound state. I guess Shankar is just using the words in a particular way.
$endgroup$
– DanielSank
4 hours ago
2
2
$begingroup$
I find that puzzling too because I would think that a state moving around in a potential is still a bound state. I guess Shankar is just using the words in a particular way.
$endgroup$
– DanielSank
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
I find that puzzling too because I would think that a state moving around in a potential is still a bound state. I guess Shankar is just using the words in a particular way.
$endgroup$
– DanielSank
4 hours ago
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
I think most of us would agree that superposition of bound states — say, of an electron in an atom — still deserves to be called a bound state, even though most such superpositions are time-dependent. The electron is still bound to the atom.
Based on the context from which the excerpt shown in the OP was extracted, it looks like Shankar is specifically talking about the ground state. The paragraph begins with
Let us now ... discuss the fact that the lowest energy is not zero...
(emphasis added by me), and the following paragraph ends with
The uncertainty principle is often used in this fashion to provide a quick order-of-magnitude estimate for the ground-state energy.
So although Shankar doesn't say it directly, the whole derivation seems to be focused on a particular stationary state, not a generic bound state. This inference is consistent with the fact that, just a few paragraphs earlier, Shankar writes
Bound states are thus characterized by $psi(x)to 0$ [as $|x|toinfty$] ... The energy levels of bound states are always quantized.
Shankar doesn't say that bound states always have sharply-defined energies, so none of this contradicts the usual convention that a superposition of bound states is still called a bound state, whether or not it happens to be stationary.
answered 3 hours ago
Chiral AnomalyChiral Anomaly
12.4k21541
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
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
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f468307%2fis-a-bound-state-a-stationary-state%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
$begingroup$
I think most of us would agree that superposition of bound states — say, of an electron in an atom — still deserves to be called a bound state, even though most such superpositions are time-dependent. The electron is still bound to the atom.
Based on the context from which the excerpt shown in the OP was extracted, it looks like Shankar is specifically talking about the ground state. The paragraph begins with
Let us now ... discuss the fact that the lowest energy is not zero...
(emphasis added by me), and the following paragraph ends with
The uncertainty principle is often used in this fashion to provide a quick order-of-magnitude estimate for the ground-state energy.
So although Shankar doesn't say it directly, the whole derivation seems to be focused on a particular stationary state, not a generic bound state. This inference is consistent with the fact that, just a few paragraphs earlier, Shankar writes
Bound states are thus characterized by $psi(x)to 0$ [as $|x|toinfty$] ... The energy levels of bound states are always quantized.
Shankar doesn't say that bound states always have sharply-defined energies, so none of this contradicts the usual convention that a superposition of bound states is still called a bound state, whether or not it happens to be stationary.
answered 3 hours ago
Chiral AnomalyChiral Anomaly
12.4k21541
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I think most of us would agree that superposition of bound states — say, of an electron in an atom — still deserves to be called a bound state, even though most such superpositions are time-dependent. The electron is still bound to the atom.
Based on the context from which the excerpt shown in the OP was extracted, it looks like Shankar is specifically talking about the ground state. The paragraph begins with
Let us now ... discuss the fact that the lowest energy is not zero...
(emphasis added by me), and the following paragraph ends with
The uncertainty principle is often used in this fashion to provide a quick order-of-magnitude estimate for the ground-state energy.
So although Shankar doesn't say it directly, the whole derivation seems to be focused on a particular stationary state, not a generic bound state. This inference is consistent with the fact that, just a few paragraphs earlier, Shankar writes
Bound states are thus characterized by $psi(x)to 0$ [as $|x|toinfty$] ... The energy levels of bound states are always quantized.
Shankar doesn't say that bound states always have sharply-defined energies, so none of this contradicts the usual convention that a superposition of bound states is still called a bound state, whether or not it happens to be stationary.
answered 3 hours ago
Chiral AnomalyChiral Anomaly
12.4k21541
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I think most of us would agree that superposition of bound states — say, of an electron in an atom — still deserves to be called a bound state, even though most such superpositions are time-dependent. The electron is still bound to the atom.
Based on the context from which the excerpt shown in the OP was extracted, it looks like Shankar is specifically talking about the ground state. The paragraph begins with
Let us now ... discuss the fact that the lowest energy is not zero...
(emphasis added by me), and the following paragraph ends with
The uncertainty principle is often used in this fashion to provide a quick order-of-magnitude estimate for the ground-state energy.
So although Shankar doesn't say it directly, the whole derivation seems to be focused on a particular stationary state, not a generic bound state. This inference is consistent with the fact that, just a few paragraphs earlier, Shankar writes
Bound states are thus characterized by $psi(x)to 0$ [as $|x|toinfty$] ... The energy levels of bound states are always quantized.
Shankar doesn't say that bound states always have sharply-defined energies, so none of this contradicts the usual convention that a superposition of bound states is still called a bound state, whether or not it happens to be stationary.
answered 3 hours ago
Chiral AnomalyChiral Anomaly
12.4k21541
$endgroup$
I think most of us would agree that superposition of bound states — say, of an electron in an atom — still deserves to be called a bound state, even though most such superpositions are time-dependent. The electron is still bound to the atom.
Based on the context from which the excerpt shown in the OP was extracted, it looks like Shankar is specifically talking about the ground state. The paragraph begins with
Let us now ... discuss the fact that the lowest energy is not zero...
(emphasis added by me), and the following paragraph ends with
The uncertainty principle is often used in this fashion to provide a quick order-of-magnitude estimate for the ground-state energy.
So although Shankar doesn't say it directly, the whole derivation seems to be focused on a particular stationary state, not a generic bound state. This inference is consistent with the fact that, just a few paragraphs earlier, Shankar writes
Bound states are thus characterized by $psi(x)to 0$ [as $|x|toinfty$] ... The energy levels of bound states are always quantized.
Shankar doesn't say that bound states always have sharply-defined energies, so none of this contradicts the usual convention that a superposition of bound states is still called a bound state, whether or not it happens to be stationary.
answered 3 hours ago
Chiral AnomalyChiral Anomaly
12.4k21541
answered 3 hours ago
Chiral AnomalyChiral Anomaly
12.4k21541
answered 3 hours ago
Chiral AnomalyChiral Anomaly
12.4k21541
answered 3 hours ago
Chiral AnomalyChiral Anomaly
12.4k21541
12.4k21541
add a comment |
add a comment |
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.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f468307%2fis-a-bound-state-a-stationary-state%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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
2
$begingroup$
I find that puzzling too because I would think that a state moving around in a potential is still a bound state. I guess Shankar is just using the words in a particular way.
$endgroup$
– DanielSank
4 hours ago