Is a bound state a stationary state?












2












$begingroup$


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







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 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
    5 hours ago
















2












$begingroup$


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







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 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
    5 hours ago














2












2








2





$begingroup$


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







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




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






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited 4 hours ago









Qmechanic♦

106k121961226




106k121961226










asked 5 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
    5 hours ago














  • 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
    5 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
5 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
5 hours ago










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















2












$begingroup$

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.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$













    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
    });


    }
    });














    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    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









    2












    $begingroup$

    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.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$


















      2












      $begingroup$

      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.






      share|cite|improve this answer









      $endgroup$
















        2












        2








        2





        $begingroup$

        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.






        share|cite|improve this answer









        $endgroup$



        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.







        share|cite|improve this answer












        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer










        answered 4 hours ago









        Chiral AnomalyChiral Anomaly

        12.4k21541




        12.4k21541






























            draft saved

            draft discarded




















































            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%2f468307%2fis-a-bound-state-a-stationary-state%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

            GameSpot

            Image
            body.skin-minerva .mw-parser-output table.infobox caption{text-align:center} GameSpot 戰地風雲：惡名昭彰2在Gamespot的評論 网站类型 新聞 持有者 CBS 创始人 Pete Deemer Vince Broady Jon Epstein 网站 http://www.gamespot.com/ 注册 Optional (free and paid) 推出时间 1996年5月1日 [1] GameSpot （中国大陆：游戏基地），於1996年5月由Pete Deemer和Vince Broady創立，是一個提供新聞、評論、預告片、下載及其他的相關資訊的電子遊戲網站。GameSpot被一間後來被CNET收購的企業ZDNet所收購。根據Alexa，GameSpot.com是200個網路擁擠最嚴重的網站之一。 除了由GameSpot員工創作的內容，網站還允許用戶寫評論、網誌、之後在網路論壇分享。一些在CNET旗下的GameFAQs分享。 2004年， GameSpot被Spike TV的觀眾選上「電子遊戲賞節目」贏得「最傑出遊戲網站。 [2] 其他的遊戲網站還有IGN、1UP.com、GameSpy是它最大的競爭對手。2008年，根據Compete.com的統計，「gamespot.com」吸引了最少6000萬人的點擊率。 [3] GameSpot的主頁鏈結了到最近新聞、評論、預告、和一些有關遊戲機的入口：Wii、任天堂DS、電腦遊戲、Xbox 360、PSP、PlayStation 2、PlayStation 3。它還有一列「最受歡迎遊戲名單」，還有給用戶快速獲得遊戲資訊的搜尋器。GameSpot 還包括一些小範圍的遊戲機：任天堂64、GameCube、Game Boy Color、Game Boy Advance、Xbox、PlayStation、SEGA Saturn、Dreamcast、Neo Geo Pocket Color、N-Gage、手機遊戲。 目录 1 歷史 1.1 國際歷史 1.2 著名的員工 2 評論和分...
            Read more

            日野市

            Image
            body.skin-minerva .mw-parser-output table.infobox caption{text-align:center} 日野市 日野市 日文轉寫  • 日文 日野市  • 平假名 ひのし  • 罗马字 Hino-shi 金剛寺（關東三十六不動尊靈場第9號）的不動堂 市旗 徽章 日野市在東京都的位置 日野市 日野市在日本的位置 坐标： 35°40′17″N 139°23′42″E  /  35.6714°N 139.395°E  / 35.6714; 139.395 国家   日本 地方 關東地方 都道府縣 東京都 接鄰行政區 府中市、國立市、立川市、昭島市、八王子市、多摩市 政府  • 市長 大坪冬彦 面积  •  总计 27.53 平方公里（10.63 平方英里） 人口 （2014年12月1日）  • 總計 183,323  • 密度 6,660/平方公里（17,200/平方英里） 象徵  • 市樹 樫  • 市花 菊花  • 市鳥 普通翠鳥 时区 日本標準時間 （UTC+9） 地方公共團體編號 13212-8 邮政编码 〒 191-8686 市役所地址 日野市神明一丁目12番1號 電話號碼 +81-42-585-1111 法人編號 1000020132128 網站 http://www.city.hino.lg.jp/ 人口：日野市官方網頁 日野市 （日语： 日野市 ／ ひのし   Hino shi   * / ? ）為一位于東京都（不含島嶼部分）中央地帶的城市。從東京站乘坐中央線特別快速列車45分鐘即可到該市。面積27.53km²。1963年（昭和38年）11月3日，該市開始實行市制，為全日本第559個市。汽車企業日野自動車的總部位於這裡。 往東京都特別區部的通勤率為20.9%，往八王子市的通勤率為12.0%（平成22年國勢調査）。 目录 1 概要 ...
            Read more

            Tu-95轟炸機

            Image
            body.skin-minerva .mw-parser-output table.infobox caption{text-align:center} 图-95 Ту–95 北约代号：熊（Bear） 一架在安格斯空军基地的图-95MS 概觀 類型 战略轰炸机 代號 北约代号： Bear （熊） 乘員 7名 駕駛員2名，機尾炮手1名，其他人員4名 首飛 1952年11月12日 服役 1956年 設計 圖波列夫設計局 產量 超过500架 現況 现役 主要用戶   蘇聯   俄羅斯 衍生機型 图-114、图-119、Tu-95 技术数据 長度 49.50米（162呎5吋） 翼展 51.10米（167呎8吋） 高度 12.12米（39呎9吋） 翼面積 310平方米（3,330平方呎） 空重 90,000公斤（198,000磅） 最大起飛重量 188,000公斤（414,500磅） 發動機 4具库兹涅佐夫NK-12MV型渦輪螺旋槳發動機 功率 4×11,000千瓦（14,800馬力） 性能數據 最大速度 925公里／時（500節，575哩／時） 爬升率 10米／秒（2,000呎／分） 最大升限 12,000米（39,000呎） 最大航程 15,000公里（8,100海浬，9,400哩） 翼負荷 606公斤／平方米（124磅／平方呎） 推重比 235 W／公斤（0.143馬力／磅） 武器装备 機炮 1具/2具AM-23型23公釐雷達控制機砲（機尾） 飛彈 空对地导弹： Kh-20、Kh-22 Kh-26、Kh-55 炸彈 60枚FAB-250炸彈，或 30枚FAB-500炸彈。 其他 载弹量（包括飞弹）：最多15,000公斤（33,000磅） Tu-95熊式MR型機 图-95 （俄语： Ту–95 ， 英语： Tu-95 ），北約代號： Bear （ 熊 ），是蘇聯圖波列夫設計局所研製，是全世界唯一服役的大型四渦輪螺旋槳發動機...
            Read more