Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

College Physics

A relationship about the stationary bound state of centrally symmetric potential

Gao Ze-yang

Published Jan 1, 2011• 0 citations
OpenAlex

Abstract

For a microscopic particle in a centrally symmetric potential and in its stationary bound state,there is a relationship about the expectation value of the force to the particle.In this paper,several different proofs to this relationship are presented with a discussion to its physics connotation.In addition,the conditions necessary for the relationship to hold is discussed,hence the related misunderstanding or inaccuracy currently in literature is clarified.

Related papers

Remarks on the Bound States of a Central Potential in Quantum Mechanics

B. W. Downs

A simple proof is given of the fact that the ground state of a central potential is an S state. The ordering of the bound states of a central potential according to the value of the angular momentum and the number of nodes of the solution to the radial Schroedinger equation is also discussed.

American Journal of Physics•Apr 1, 1963•5 citations

PT-Symmetric Quantum Mechanics: A Precise and Consistent Formulation

Mostafazadeh, A

The physical condition that the expectation values of physical observables are real quantities is used to give a precise formulation of PT-symmetric quantum mechanics. A mathematically rigorous proof is given to establish the physical equivalence of PT-symmetric and conventional quantum mechanics. The results reported in this paper apply to arbitrary PT-symmetric Hamiltonians with a real and discrete spectrum. They hold regardless of whether the boundary conditions defining the spectrum of the Hamiltonian are given on the real line or a complex contour.

•Jan 1, 2004•26 citations

Quantum Bound States and Conditional Probability

Francesco R. Ruggeri

It is sometimes stated in the literature (1) that quantum mechanics is based on conditional probabilities. If this is the case, one would expect such conditional probabilities to appear in a single particle bound state. A free quantum particle is associated with a probability to interact of exp(ipx) (linked to 2-slit interference, 1-D reflection-refraction at an n1-n2 junction etc), but the kinetic energy and momentum are pp/2m (nonrelativistic) and p at all x even though each x has a different phase according to exp(ipx). The momentum is p at x, but the probability for an impulse hit at x is not the same even though its modulus is. When different probabilities exp(ipx) add in an OR situation, this leads to a spatial pattern which no longer has a modulus of 1, i.e. translational invariance is broken. Such a pattern also occurs for a single particle bound state W(x)=Sum over p a(p)exp(ipx). W(x) can have 0 points, but the average kinetic energy -1/2m d/dx dW/dx / W is not 0 at such a point. One has, on average (a statistical calculation), no average interaction at such an x point. One might ask why this should have anything to do with average kinetic energy? If one writes a conservation law: KEave(x) + V(x) = 0, then one considers kinetic energy interacting with potential energy. If there is no interaction at some x point for a given p (not W(x) on average), then it should not be part of the conservation of energy at this point. One is only interested in kinetic energy which interacts with potential energy at each x point. Thus, a(p) exp(ipx) + a(-p) exp(-ipx) (with a(p)=a(-p)) may have a 0 point at some x and so it does not have an average interaction at such a point, i.e. pp/2m (a(p)exp(ipx) + a(-p)exp(-ipx)) = 0. As a result, in a bound state, one considers kinetic energy per p, -p multiplied by the average probability (p, -p). Different a(p)exp(ipx) + a(-p)exp(-ipx) (a(p)=a(-p)) weights in this average picture indicate the extent to which the particle interacts. This idea holds for a single p,-p pair, but one must normalize over all such pairs, leading to the idea of a conditional probability. Given that hbar/p must be “created physically” in space so to speak, one must have interaction probability which creates this physical situation even in cos(px)+ i sin(px). This leads to the idea of interaction probability being 0, positive, but <1, or even negative and it is the interaction which allows one to consider conservation of energy with a potential V(x) in the first place. As a result, one cannot include a full pp/2m if there is negative, 0 or only particle interaction. Thus, pp/2m is multiplied by 2 a(p)cos(px) /W(x) for a(p)=a(-p).

•May 29, 2026•0 citations

Trapped Particles in $PT$ Symmetric Theories

C. Yüce, Arzu Kurt, A. Kucukaslan

$PT$ symmetric quantum mechanics for a particle trapped by the generalized non-Hermitian harmonic oscillator potential is studied. It is shown that energy and the expectation value of the position operator $x$ can not be real simultaneously, if the particle is trapped. Non-vanishing boundary conditions for the trapped particle in $PT$ symmetric theory are also discussed.

arXiv:quant-ph/0602103•Feb 13, 2006•0 citations

Simple applications

Peter Holland

Stationary states General properties We shall consider first some general characteristics of the ‘stationary states’. These are eigenfunctions of the Hamiltonian operator: The requirement that ψ satisfies the Schrödinger equation fixes its time dependence: Notice that (4.1.2) can only be a solution if the external potential V is independent of the time: V = V ( x ). The initial function ψ 0 is not arbitrary but must satisfy the time-independent Schrödinger equation (4.1.1). Writing ψ = R e iS /ħ one thus has The following deductions may be made from (4.1.3): ( a ) The probability density is independent of the time: |ψ| 2 = R 2 0 ( X ). ( b ) The quantum potential Q = (- ħ2/2 mR 0 )∇ 2 R 0 is time-independent. Therefore so is the total effective potential: ( c ) The velocity field v = (l/ m )∇ S 0 is independent of time and hence the trajectories, found by solving m = v ( x )| x = x ( t ) , are solutions of Moreover, ψ 0 ( x ) is often a real function for many bound state problems of interest (although not for scattering states) which implies that the velocity is zero. The particle is at rest where one would classically expect it to move since the quantum force (- ∇ Q ) cancels the classical force (- ∇ K ). ( d ) The energy of all particles in the ensemble, -∂ S /∂ t , is a constant of the motion and equal to the energy eigenvalue: with (4.1.4), we have an example of the conservation of energy (cf. §3.9.3). ( e ) The total field energy is conserved: 〈Ĥ〉 = E . […]

Cambridge University Press eBooks•May 13, 1993•0 citations

Particle in a Quantum δ\deltaδ-Function Potential

Hristu Culetu

A quantum potential $V(x,t)$ of $\delta$-function type is introduced, to describe the inertial motion of a particle. Quantum-mechanically, it is in a bound state, though classically one seems to be free. The motion of the object (micro- or macroscopic) takes place according to the Huygens-Fresnel principle. The new position of the object (wave front) plays the role of the secondary sources that maintain the propagation. The mean value of the potential energy is $-mc^{2}$. We found that the de Broglie - Bohm quantum potential is the difference between the bound energy $E = - mc^{2}/2$ from the stationary case and our potential $V(x,t)$.

•Apr 1, 2018•0 citations
For a microscopic particle in a centrally symmetric potential and in its stationary bound state,there is a relationship about the expectation value of the force to the particle.In this paper,several different proofs to this relationship are presented with a discussion to its physics connotation.In addition,the conditions necessary for the relationship to hold is discussed,hence the related misunderstanding or inaccuracy currently in literature is clarified.
The physical condition that the expectation values of physical observables are real quantities is used to give a precise formulation of PT-symmetric quantum mechanics. A mathematically rigorous proof is given to establish the physical equivalence of PT-symmetric and conventional quantum mechanics. The results reported in this paper apply to arbitrary PT-symmetric Hamiltonians with a real and discrete spectrum. They hold regardless of whether the boundary conditions defining the spectrum of the Hamiltonian are given on the real line or a complex contour.
It is sometimes stated in the literature (1) that quantum mechanics is based on conditional probabilities. If this is the case, one would expect such conditional probabilities to appear in a single particle bound state. A free quantum particle is associated with a probability to interact of exp(ipx) (linked to 2-slit interference, 1-D reflection-refraction at an n1-n2 junction etc), but the kinetic energy and momentum are pp/2m (nonrelativistic) and p at all x even though each x has a different phase according to exp(ipx). The momentum is p at x, but the probability for an impulse hit at x is not the same even though its modulus is. When different probabilities exp(ipx) add in an OR situation, this leads to a spatial pattern which no longer has a modulus of 1, i.e. translational invariance is broken. Such a pattern also occurs for a single particle bound state W(x)=Sum over p a(p)exp(ipx). W(x) can have 0 points, but the average kinetic energy -1/2m d/dx dW/dx / W is not 0 at such a point. One has, on average (a statistical calculation), no average interaction at such an x point. One might ask why this should have anything to do with average kinetic energy? If one writes a conservation law: KEave(x) + V(x) = 0, then one considers kinetic energy interacting with potential energy. If there is no interaction at some x point for a given p (not W(x) on average), then it should not be part of the conservation of energy at this point. One is only interested in kinetic energy which interacts with potential energy at each x point. Thus, a(p) exp(ipx) + a(-p) exp(-ipx) (with a(p)=a(-p)) may have a 0 point at some x and so it does not have an average interaction at such a point, i.e. pp/2m (a(p)exp(ipx) + a(-p)exp(-ipx)) = 0. As a result, in a bound state, one considers kinetic energy per p, -p multiplied by the average probability (p, -p). Different a(p)exp(ipx) + a(-p)exp(-ipx) (a(p)=a(-p)) weights in this average picture indicate the extent to which the particle interacts. This idea holds for a single p,-p pair, but one must normalize over all such pairs, leading to the idea of a conditional probability. Given that hbar/p must be “created physically” in space so to speak, one must have interaction probability which creates this physical situation even in cos(px)+ i sin(px). This leads to the idea of interaction probability being 0, positive, but <1, or even negative and it is the interaction which allows one to consider conservation of energy with a potential V(x) in the first place. As a result, one cannot include a full pp/2m if there is negative, 0 or only particle interaction. Thus, pp/2m is multiplied by 2 a(p)cos(px) /W(x) for a(p)=a(-p).
Trapped Particles in PTPTPT Symmetric Theories
PTPTPT symmetric quantum mechanics for a particle trapped by the generalized non-Hermitian harmonic oscillator potential is studied. It is shown that energy and the expectation value of the position operator xxx can not be real simultaneously, if the particle is trapped. Non-vanishing boundary conditions for the trapped particle in PTPTPT symmetric theory are also discussed.
Stationary states General properties We shall consider first some general characteristics of the ‘stationary states’. These are eigenfunctions of the Hamiltonian operator: The requirement that ψ satisfies the Schrödinger equation fixes its time dependence: Notice that (4.1.2) can only be a solution if the external potential V is independent of the time: V = V ( x ). The initial function ψ 0 is not arbitrary but must satisfy the time-independent Schrödinger equation (4.1.1). Writing ψ = R e iS /ħ one thus has The following deductions may be made from (4.1.3): ( a ) The probability density is independent of the time: |ψ| 2 = R 2 0 ( X ). ( b ) The quantum potential Q = (- ħ2/2 mR 0 )∇ 2 R 0 is time-independent. Therefore so is the total effective potential: ( c ) The velocity field v = (l/ m )∇ S 0 is independent of time and hence the trajectories, found by solving m = v ( x )| x = x ( t ) , are solutions of Moreover, ψ 0 ( x ) is often a real function for many bound state problems of interest (although not for scattering states) which implies that the velocity is zero. The particle is at rest where one would classically expect it to move since the quantum force (- ∇ Q ) cancels the classical force (- ∇ K ). ( d ) The energy of all particles in the ensemble, -∂ S /∂ t , is a constant of the motion and equal to the energy eigenvalue: with (4.1.4), we have an example of the conservation of energy (cf. §3.9.3). ( e ) The total field energy is conserved: 〈Ĥ〉 = E . […]
A quantum potential V(x,t)V(x,t)V(x,t) of δ\deltaδ-function type is introduced, to describe the inertial motion of a particle. Quantum-mechanically, it is in a bound state, though classically one seems to be free. The motion of the object (micro- or macroscopic) takes place according to the Huygens-Fresnel principle. The new position of the object (wave front) plays the role of the secondary sources that maintain the propagation. The mean value of the potential energy is −mc2-mc^{2}−mc2. We found that the de Broglie - Bohm quantum potential is the difference between the bound energy E=−mc2/2E = - mc^{2}/2E=−mc2/2 from the stationary case and our potential V(x,t)V(x,t)V(x,t).