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
    3 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
    3 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 2 hours ago









Qmechanic♦

106k121961226




106k121961226










asked 3 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
    3 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
    3 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
3 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
3 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 2 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

            Ponta tanko

            Image
            Usona ponta tanko M60A1 Ponta tanko estas, simile kiel kirasita savveturilo, inter specialaj kirasitaj transportiloj. Kiel pontaj tankoj eblas konsideri ĉiujn memmovigaj rimedoj ebligantaj superi obstaklojn ĝis larĝeco 24 metroj rekte en spaco de bataloperacoj. Ties ĉefa tasko estas ebligi al la propraj taĉmentoj daŭrigi en rapida antaŭenirado sen senbezona reteniĝo. El tio pli-malpli rezultas taktikaj-teknikaj postuloj, kiujn ili devas plenumi. Precipe temas pri kapablo operacii komune kun unue-sinsekvaj taĉmentoj kaj transpontigi obstaklojn dum kelke da minutoj. This page is only for reference, If you need detailed information, please check here
            Read more

            Tantalo (mitologio)

            Image
            Ĉi tiu artikolo temas pri mitologio. Por aliaj signifoj vidu la paĝon Tantalo (apartigilo) . Tantalo , laŭ Gioacchino Assereto. Laŭ la helena mitologio, Tantalo (el la greka Τάνταλος , ŝancelanta aŭ tre malfeliĉa ) estis filo de Zeŭso kaj la oceanidino Pluto, laŭ la plej divastigata versio. Li estis reĝo de Frigio [1] aŭ de la monto Sipilo, en Lidio (Malgrandazio) [2] kaj post sia morto li suferis eternan torturadon ĉe la Tartaro, la plej profunda parto de Hadeso, rezervita por la plej perversaj homoj. Tamen, kelkaj rakontoj asertas ke li estis reĝo de Argo aŭ de Korinto [3] , aŭ ke li migris norden el la monto Sipilo por akiri la tronon de Paflagonio, el kie Ilo forpelis lin pro tio, ke Tantalo forkaptis kaj seksperfortis lian fraton Ganimedon [4] , kaj tiel ofendis la diojn. Verŝajne li ankaŭ regis urbon en okcidenta Anatolio, kiun oni nomis Tantalis [5] pro li, aŭ Sipilo , pro la monto sur kies flanko ankoraŭ staras ĝiaj ruinaĵoj [6] . Laŭ la geografiisto Strabo,...
            Read more

            Erzsébet Schaár

            Image
            Erzsébet Schaár Memportreto de Erzsébet Schaár en Pécs Personaj informoj Naskiĝo 27-an de julio 1908 ( 1908-07-27 ) en Budafok Morto 29-an de aŭgusto 1975 ( 1975-08-29 ) (67-jara) en Budapeŝto Ŝtataneco Hungario Profesio skulptisto Familianoj Edz(in)o Tibor Vilt v   •   d   •   r Erzsébet Schaár [erĵEbet ŝAr], laŭ hungarlingve kutima sinsekvo Schaár Erzsébet estis hungara skulptisto. Ŝia edzo estis Tibor Vilt. Déryné Széppataki Róza en Miskolc fare de Erzsébet Schaár Erzsébet Schaár [1] naskiĝis la 27-an de julio 1908 en Budafok, ŝi mortis la 29-an de aŭgusto 1975 en Budapeŝto. Enhavo 1 Biografio 2 Elektitaj solaj ekspozicioj 3 Elektitaj kolektivaj ekspozicioj 4 Elektitaj skulptaĵoj 5 Elektitaj disĉiploj 6 Fontoj 7 Referencoj Biografio | Erzsébet Schaár studis en Industriarta Lernejo, poste en Reĝa Belarta Altlernejo (1924-1926). Ŝia ĉefinstruisto estis Zsig...
            Read more