Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Physics - Quantum Mechanics, Vol 1 - Cohen - Tannoudji
Physics - Quantum Mechanics, Vol 1 - Cohen - Tannoudji
1. The uncertainty
relation thus makes us reject the semi-classical picture of the Bohr orbits (see
§C-2 of chapter VII).
References and suggestions for further reading:
Bohm (5.1), chap. 5, § 14.Complement C;
THE UNCERTAINTY RELATIONS AND ATOMIC PARAMETERS
The Bohr orbit has no physical reality when coupled with the uncertainty relations
(cf. complement B,). Later (chap. VII), we shall study the quantum theory of the
hydrogen atom. We are going to show immediately, however, how the uncer-
tainty relations enable one to understand the stability of atoms and even to
derive simply the order of magnitude of the dimensions and the energy of the
hydrogen atom in its ground state,
Let us consider, therefore, an electron in the coulomb field of a proton,
which we shall assume to be stationary at the origin of the coordinate system.
When the two particles are separated by a distance r, the potential energy
of the electron is:
ve) a)
Gna
where q is its charge (exactly opposite to that of the proton). We shall set:
2
: @
4ne9
Assume that the state of the electron is described by a spherically symmetric
wave function whose spatial extent is characterized by ro (this means that the
probability of presence is practically zero heyond 2r4 or 379). The potential
energy corresponding to this state is then on the order of:
8)
For it to be as low as possible, it is necessary to take ry as small as possible
That is, the wave function must be as concentrated as possible about the proton
Bui it is aisu necessary iv take i ie cueigy iniy avvuni, This is
where the uncertainty principle comes in: if the electron is confined within
a volume of linear dimension ro, the uncertainty 4p in its momentum is at
least of the order of hiro. In other words, even if the average momentum is zero,
the kinetic energy T associated with the state under consideration is not zero
R
oat @
Teta
oe
2m (AP) fe
If we take ro smaller in order to decrease the potential energy, the minimum
kinetic energy (4) increases.
‘The lowest total energy compatible with the uncertainty relation is thus
the minimum of the function:
oo ee
i eer ae ieee 6)
2mr3 rg
E,
47This minimum is obtained for:
#
To = dy = 6
me’
and is equal to:
me
po 7)
om oe U)
Variation with respect to re (extension of
‘the wave function) ofthe potential energy F,
the Kinetic energy 7, and the total eneesy
T+ V of & hydrogen atom, The func-
tions T and 7 vary inversely, so the total
‘energy passes through minimum value
for some value of T and V. The cortespon-
fing value ap ofr gives the order of magai-
tude of the hydrogen atom’s sie,
Expression (6) is the one found in the Bohr model for the radius of the
first orbit, and (7) gives correctly the energy of the ground state of the hydrogen
atom (see chap. VIT; the wave function of the ground state is indeed e~"*°), Such
quantitative agreement can only be accidental, since we have been reasoning
fon the basis of orders of magnitude. However, the preceding calculation reveals
an important physical idea: because of the uncertainty relation, the smaller the
extension of the wave function, the greater the kinetic energy of the electron.
The ground state of the atom results from a compromise between the kinetic
energy and the potential energy.
We stress the fact that this compromise, based on the uncertainty relation,
is totally different from what would be expected in classical mechanics. If the
electron moved in a classical circular orbit of radius ro, its potential energy
would be equal to:
a
iets @)
The corresponding kinetic energy is obtained by equating the electrostatic force
and the centrifugal force*:
a
0)
7
3
* In fact, the laws of classical electromagnetism indicate that an accelerated electron radiates,
‘which already torbids the existence of stable orbit.
48which gives
ees
Ta jmt ase (10)
The total energy would then be equal to:
y= Tat Va ay
‘The most favorable energetic situation would occur at rp = 0, which would
give an infinite binding energy. Thus, we can say that it is the uncertainty
relation which enables us to understand, as it were, the existence of atoms.
ns for further reading:
Feynman II] (1.2), § 2-4. The same type of reasoning applied to molecules:
Schiff (1.18), first section of § 49.Complement Dy
AN EXPERIMENT ILLUSTRATING THE UNCERTAINTY RELATION
Young's double-slit experiment, which we analyzed in § A-2 of chapter I, led us
to the following conclusions: both wave and particle aspects of light are
needed to explain the observed phenomena; but they seem to he mutually
exclusive, in the sense that it is impossible to determine through which slit each
photon has passed without destroying, by this very operation, the interference pattern.
‘The wave and particle aspects are sometimes said to be complementary.
We are going to consider Young's doubie-siit experiment again to demonstrate
how complementarity and uncertainty relations are intimately related. To try to
cast doubt on the uncertainty relation, one can imagine more subtle devices
than the one of chapter I, which used photomultipliers placed behind the slits.
We shall now analyze one of these devices.
FIGURE 1
Sole 6
Diagram of a device using a
F
‘movable plate 2 whose momentum
90 ig measured before and after the
——— ‘pastage of the photon to determine
‘whether the photon passed through
FF, oc through F, before arriving at
vite
polnt on the sereen,
Assume that the plate %, in which the slits are pierced, is mounted so
that it can move vertically in the same plane. Thus, it is possible to measure the
vertical momentum transferred to it. Consider (fig. 1) a photon which strikes
the observation screen & at point M (for simplicity, we choose a source ¥ at infinity).
The momentum of this photon changes when it crosses 2. Conservation of
momentum implies that the plate # absorbs the difference, But the momentum
thus transferred to # depends on the path of the photon ; depending on whether it
passed through F, or F,, the photon has a momentum of:
Ps ~B sin 0, (a)
50THE UNCERTAINTY RELATION : AN EXPERIMENT eo
or:
@)
«@ is the photon’s momentum, 6, and 0, are the angles made by F,M and
F,M with the incident sieation)
We then allow the photons to arrive one by one and gradually construct
the interference pattern on the screen &. For each one, we determine through which
slit it has passed by measuring the momentum acquired by the plate #, It
therefore seems that interference phenomena can still be observed on & although
we know through which slit each photon has passed.
Actually, we shall see that the interference fringes are not visible with this
device. The error in the preceding argument consists of assuming that only the
photons have a quantum character. In reality, it must not be forgotten that
quantum mechanics also applies to the plate # (macroscopic object). If we want
to know through which hole a photon has passed, the uncertainty 4p in the
vertical momentum of # must be sufficiently small for us to be able to measure
the difference between p, and p;:
4p < |p - Pil 8)
But then the uncertainty relation implies that the position of # is only known
to within 4x, with:
av zt «)
[ps - pil
If we designate by a the separation of the two slits and by d the distance
between the plate # and the screen &. and if we assume that @, and @, are small
(dja > 1), we find (fig. 1):
x= aj
sin 8, ~
x + a/2
(5)
sin 8, ~ 6, ~
a
(x denotes the position of the point of impact M on &). Formulas (1) and (2)
then give :
[pa — Pil = 102 — | = 55 6)
where a =< is the wavelength of light. Substituting this value into formula (4),
we obtain:
eet a
a
31COMPLEMENT Dy
But # is precisely the fringe separation we expect to find on 6. If the vertical
position of the slits F, and F, is defined only to within an uncertainty greater
than the fringe separation, it is impossible to observe the interference pattern,
The preceding discussion clearly shows that it is impossible to construct a
quantum theory which is valid for light and not for material systems without
running into serious contradictions. Thus, in the above example, if we could
treat the plate # as a classical material system, we could invalidate the comple-
mentarity of the two aspects of light. and. consequently. the quantum theory of
radiation. Inversely, a quantum theory of matter alone would come up against
analogous difficulties. In order to obtain an overall coherence, we must apply
quantum ideas to all physical systems.
Roterences and suggestions for turther
ng
Bohm (5.1), chaps. $ and 6; Messiah (1.17), chap. IV § II; Shi (1.18), § 45
Jammer (5.12), chaps. 4 and 5; also see reference (5.7).
2rwo-omeutoua wave scar @
Complement &;
A SIMPLE TREATMENT
OF A TWO-DIMENSIONAL WAVE PACKET
1. Introduction
2. Angular dispersion and lateral dimensions
3. Discussion,
1. Introduction
In § C-2 of chapter 1, we studied the shape of one-dimensional wave
packets, obtained by superposing plane waves which all propagate in the same
direction [formula (C-7)]. If this direction is that of the Ox axis, the resulting
function is independent of » and z. It has a finite extension along Ox, but is not
limited in the perpendicular directions : its value is the same at all points of a
plane parallel to yOz.
We intend to examine here another simple type of wave packets: the
plane waves which we are going to combine have coplanar wave vectors,
which are (nearly) equal in magnitude but have slightly different directions. The
goal is to show how the angular dispersion leads to a limitation of the wave
packet in the directions perpendicular to the average wave vector.
‘We saw in § C-2 of chapter I how, by studying the superposition of
three specific waves of the one-dimensional packet, one can understand the most
important aspects of the phenomena, In particular, one can find the fundamental
relation (C-18) of this chapter. We are going to limit ourselves here to a
simplified model of this type. The generalization of the results which we are
going to find can be carried out in the same way as in chapter I (see also
complement F,).
2. Angular dispersion and lateral dimensions
Consider three plane waves, whose wave vectors k,, k, and k, are shown
in figure I. All three are in the xOy plane; k, is directed along Ox; k, and k, are
symmetric with respect to k,. the angle between each of them and k, being 40,
which we assume to be small. Finally, the projections of k,, k, and k, on Ox are
equal:
faa = kay = hae © [hy] = w
The magnitudes of these three vectors differ only by terms which are second
order in 40, which we shall neglect. Their components along the Oy axis are :
ky, =0
” 2)
{i = by, =k sd o
3@ courenenr
We shall choose, as in § C-2 of chapter I, real amplitudes g(k) which satisfy
the relations
ak) = otk,
ae) ®
‘he arrangement of the wave veetors k,; Ky and ky
associated with three plane waves which will be super~
ahs [posed co construct a two-dimensional wave packer,
| gE oun 1
ok,
This model represents schematically a more complex situation, in which one
would have a real wave packet, as in equation (C-6) of chapter 1, with the
following characteristics : all the wave vectors are perpendicular to Oz and have
the same projection on Ox (only the component along Oy varies); the function
|g(k)| has, with respect to this single variable &,, the shape shown in figure 2;
its width Af, is related very simply to the angular dispersion 240:
Ak, = 2kA8 @
The superposition of the three waves defined above giv
2
VO, y) = ¥ afk"
1 1
= thy] et 4 Letaret ans 4D uaens ae
att e +3 +3 |
= gtk,)e™[L + cos (k 40 y)] (5)
(there is no z-dependence, which is why this is called a two-dimensional wave
packet).
GuRE 2
‘The three values chosen for k, represent very
schematically a peaked function |a(k)] (dashed
line).rwo-omensionn wave eaceer @
In order to understand what happens, we can use figure 3, where we represent,
for each of the three components, the successive wave fronts corresponding to phase
differences of 2n. The function |y(x, y)| has a maximum at y = 0: the three waves
interfere constructively on the Ox axis. When we move away from this axis,
v(x, y)| decreases (the phase shift between the components increases) and goes
to mero aly = + 2 where dy is given by:
A
cos (1.10%) =-1 Cy
that is, for:
kA0 Ay = 2n a
The phases of the (k,) and (k,) waves are then in opposition with that of the (k,)
wave (fig. 3). Using (4), we can rewrite (7) in a form which is analogous
to that of relation (C-11) of chapter I:
Ay. Ak, = 4x (8)
FIGURE 3
Equal phase planes of the three
waves assoclated with the three k
vectors of figure 1: these waves are
in phase at y = 0, but interfere des-
truetively at y = 4 2n/ 4k,
Thus an angular dispersion of the wave vectors limits the lateral dimensions
of the wave packets. Quantitatively, this limitation has the form of an uncertainty
relation [formulas (7) and (8)].
3. Discussion
Consider a plane wave with wave vector k propagating along Ox. Any
attempt to limit its extension perpendicular to Ox causes an angular dispersion
to appear, that is, transforms it into a wave packet analogous to the ones we are
studying here.
35‘Assume, for example, that we place in the path of the plane wave a screen
pierced by a slit of width dy. This will give rise to a diffracted wave (cf. fig. 4).
We know that the angular width of the diffraction pattern is given by:
240 = 27 0)
where 1 = ] ig the incident wavelength, This is indeed the same situation
as above : formulas (7) and (9) are identical.
— —"
—_. ~~ toes
‘When the uncertainty 4y is decreased, the
Aitfeaction of the wave by the diaphragm
Increases the uncertainty Ak,
36Complement F,
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
ONE- AND THREE-DIMENSIONAL PROBLEMS
1. Three-dimensional wave packet
8, Simple case
». General case
2, Justification of one-dimensional models
The space in which a classical or quantum particle moves is, of course,
three-dimensional. This is why we wrote the Schrédinger equation (D-1) in
chapter I for a wave function y/(r) which depends on the three components x, , 2
of r. Nevertheless, we have repeatedly used in this chapter a one-dimensional
model, in which only the x-variable is considered, without justifying this model
in a very precise way. Therefore, this complement has two purposes: first (§ 1).
to generalize to three dimensions the results given in § C of chapter I; then (§ 2),
to show how one can, in certain cases, rigorously justify the one-dimensional
model.
1. Thre
jonal wave packet
SIMPLE CASE
Let us begin by considering a very simple case, for which the following
two hypotheses are satisfied
— the wave packet is free [V(r)
in equation (C-6) of chapter I:
‘J and can therefore be written as
Jomeneoner ©
We, ) =
Ga?
— moreover, the function g(k) is of the form:
9k) = aC.) * galley) x ga(k,) (2)
Recall the expression for «o(k) in terms of k:
We oh
fh) = SE = SK + +k) 6)
Substitute (2) and (3) into (1). It is possible to separate the three integrations
with respect to k,, k, and k, to obtain
WE) = Wil, D x VAD) x Wale @)
37COMPLEMENT Fi
with:
a,lk,) eft A dk,
(6)
and analogous expressions for ,(y, 1) and ,(z, #).
WC, #) indeed has the form of a one-dimensional wave packet. In this
particular vase, ¥(r, 0) is thus oblained simply by taking the product (4) of
three one-dimensional wave packets, each of which evolves in a totally independent
way.
b. GENERAL CASE
In the general case, where the potential V(r) is arbitrary, formula (1) is
not valid. It is then useful to introduce the three-dimensional Fourier transform
(k, 1) of the function y (r, £) by writing:
ver) =— f atk, t) dk 6
A priori, the t-dependence of g(k, t), which brings in V(r), is arbitrary. Moreover,
there is no reason in general why we should be able to express g(k, 1) in the
form of a product, as in (2). In order to generalize the results of § C-2 of
chapter I, we make the following hypothesis about its k-dependence: |g(k, 1) is
(at a given time #) a function which has a very pronounced peak for values of k
close to Ky and takes on a negligible value when the tip of k leaves a domain D,
centered at ky and of dimensions 4k,. 4k,. dk. As above, we set:
atk, #) = |o(k, #)| ee? (7)
so that the phase of the wave defined by the vector k can be written:
Eker) = alk, N+ kx thy thee 8)
We can set forth an argument similar to that of § C-2 of chapter I. First of all,
the wave packet attains a maximum when all the waves, for which the tip
of k is in D,, are practically in phase, that is, when & varies very little within D,.
In general, é(kc, , ¢) can be expanded about Ko, Its variation between ky and k is,
to first order in 5k = k —k,:
6506 2) = 3 os of aera]
a [ae alk, oj °)
58one. ano vuneeoimensonat enosiens @
that is, more concisely*, using (8):
E(k, r, 1) = Ok. [WSK Nneny
= Ok. fr + [Wolk. Vea] (10)
We see from (10) that the variation of &(k,r, ¢) within the domain D, will be
minimal for:
F(t) = — [¥utks Veto qy
We have scen that, under these conditions, |y(r, #)| is maximum. Relation (11)
therefore defines the position ry(t) of the center of the wave packet and constitutes
the generalization to three dimensions of equation (C-15) of chapter I.
In what domain D,, centered at ry, and of dimensions 4x, Ay, 4z, does the
wave packet (6) take on non-negligible values? |y(r, #)| becomes much smaller
than |y(r4, 1) when the various k waves destroy each other by interference,
that is, when the variation of £(k,r, ) within the domain D, is of the order
of 2n (or roughly, of the order of I radian). Set dr =r — ry; if (11) is taken
into account, relation (10) can be written :
5E(k, r,t) = 5k. or (12)
The condition Sg(k, r, ¢) 2 1 immediately gives us the relations which exist
between the dimensions of D, and those of Dy:
(4x. Ak, 21
Ay. dk, = 1
Az. Ak, 21 (13)
The Heisenberg uncertainty relations then follow directly from the relation p = hi k:
Ax. dp. h
Ay. dpy zh
42. Ap, zh (4)
These inequalities constitute the generalization to three dimensions of (C-23)
of chapter I.
Finally, note that the group velocity Vg of the wave packet can be
obtained by differentiating (11) with respect to ¢:
Ve + [Meal Meany .
In the special case of a free wave packet which does not, however, necessarily
satisfy (2), we have:
a(k, 1) = afk, 0) — a(k)t 16)
where o(k) is given by (3). Formula (15) then gives:
Vo = [otha = 22 an
which is the generalization of equation (C-31) of chapter I.
* The symbol V designates a " gradient” : by definition, V f(x, 92) the vector whose coordi-
nates ate fx, Af jy, Af dz. The index kin Vy means that. as in (9) the differentitions must be Der~
formed with respect to the variables k,, k, and k,-
9COMPLEMENT F,
2. Justification of one-dimensional model
When the potential is time-independent, we saw in § D-1 of chapter 1
that it is possible to separate the time and space variables in the Schrédinger
equation. This leads to the eigenvalue equation (D-8). We intend to show here
how it is possible, in certain cases, to extend this method further and to separate
as well the x, y, z variables in (D-8),
Assume that the potential energy V(r) can be written:
Mn) = Vn.) = KO) + KO) + KE) i)
and let us see if there exist solutions of the eigenvalue equation of the form:
vis as 6) = waka) x vais » wie) 3}
‘An argument analogous to the one set forth in chapter I (§ D-I-a) shows
that this is possible if
ia 20)
[- ES + res fos = e.o.00 @)
and if we have two other similar equations where x is replaced by y (or z),
V, by W (or K), and E, by E, (or E,). In addition, it is also necessary that
the relation:
ae en
be satisfied.
Equation (20) is of the same type as (D-8), but in one dimension,
The x, y and z variables are separated *,
‘What happens, for example, if the potential energy V(r) of a particle
depends only on x? V(r) can then be written in the form (18), where = V
and ¥, — ¥,—0. Equations (20) in y and = correspond to the case already
studied, in § C-1 of chapter I, of the free particle in one dimension; their
solutions are plane waves e»”’ and e=*. All that remains is to solve equation (20),
which amounts to considering a problem in only one dimension; nevertheless,
the total energy of the particle in three dimensions is now :
w
B= E+ 5, [K +H] 22)
The one-dimensional models studied in chapter I thus actually correspond to a
particle in three dimensions moving in a potential V(r) which depends only on x,
The solutions g,(y) and @,(z) are then very simple and correspond to particles
which are “free along Oy” or along Oz. This is why we have concentrated
all our attention on the study of the x-equation.
It can be shown (cf. chap. II, § F-4-a-f) that, when V(r) has the form (18), all the solutions
of the eigenvalue equation (D-8) are linear combinations of those we find here.
60Complement G,
ONE-DIMENSIONAL GAUSSIAN WAVE PACKET:
SPREADING OF THE WAVE PACKET
1. Definition of a gaussian wave packet
2, Caleulation of Ax and dp; uncertainty relation
3. Evolution of the wave packet
4. Caleulanion of Ux. 1)
. Velocity of the wave packet
€. Spreading of the wave packet
In this complement, we intend to study a particular (one-dimensional) free
wave packet, for which the function g(k) is gaussian. The reason why this
example is interesting lies in the fact that the calculations can be carried out
exactly and to the very end, Thus, we can first verify, in this special case,
the various properties of wave packets which we pointed out in § C of chapter I.
We shall then use these properties to study the variation in time of the width
of this wave packet and to reveal the phenomenon of spreading over time.
1. Definition of a gaussian wave packet
Consider, in a one-dimensional model, a free particle [V(x) = 0] whose
wave function at time f = 0 is:
Fa eee ara
Wx, 0) = “4 f NM elt die ay
oe},
This wave packet is obtained by superposing plane waves e* with the coef-
ficients:
eo gatos o
0
Vin (ny*
which correspond to a gaussian function centered at k =k, (and multiplied
by a numerical coefficient which normalizes the wave function). This is why
the wave packet (1) is called gaussian.
In the calculations which follow, we shall repeatedly come upon integrals
of the type:
(eB) = [ ent gg 6
61where « and P are complex numbers [for the integral (3) to converge, we
must have Re a? > 0]. The method of residues enables us to show that this
integral does not depend on B:
Ke, B) = 1(a, 0) 4
and that, when the condition — 2/4 < Arga < + m/4 is fultilled (which is always
possible if Re a? > 0), i(2, 0) is given by:
1,0) = 4100) ©
‘Now alll that remains is to evaluate /(1, 0), which can be done classically, through
1, 0) = f , dt=Vx ©
Thus we have:
@
®
j °° eure? ag
with : — 2/4 < Argx < 1 n/4,
Let us now calculate Y(x, 0). To do this, let us group, in the exponents
of (1), the k-dependent terms into a perfect square, by writing them in the
form:
a a’ 2x 2
~ Se tap 4 he = Si ty BY + kee rc)
‘We can then use (7). which yields:
72\ie
0) = (22) eto ese 9
¥50) = (=) ewe 0°
We find, as could be expected, that the Fourier transform of a gaussian
function is also gaussian (cf. appendix I),
At time ¢ = 0, the probability density of the particle is therefore given by
ss
[a g-senee 00)
hex, 0} aa
The curve which represents |(x.0)|? is the familiar hell-shaped curve.
The center of the wave packet [the maximum of |y(x,0)|*] is situated at the
point x — 0. This is indeed what we could have found if we had applied the
general formula (C-16) of chapter I since, in this particular case, the function
g(k)is teal.
622. Calculation of 4x and 4p; uncertainty relation
It is convenient, when one is studying a gaussian function f(x) = e~*"™, to
define its width Ax precisely by
ax => ap
v2
When x varies from 0 to + 4x, f(x) is reduced by a factor of 1//e. This
definition, which is, of course, arbitrary, has the advantage of coinciding with
that of the “root-mean-square deviation” of the x variable (cf. chap. III, § C-5),
With this convention, we can calculate the width 4x of the wave packet (10),
which is equal to:
ax =$ a2
We can proceed in the same way to calculate the width 4k, since |g(k, 0)|?
is also a gaussian function, This gives:
1
Ak == (13-a)
or:
i
y= (138)
Thus we obtain:
Ax. Ap = (a)
a result which is entirely compatible with Heisenberg’s uncertainty relation,
Evolution of the wave packet
® CALCULATION OF (x, 1)
In order to calculate the wave function Y(x, ¢) at time ¢, all we need to do
is use the general formula (C-6) of chapter I, which gives the wave function
of a free particle; we obtain:
+o es
Ye oe : eta gua ween ie a5)
ae a ' i : ne
with off) = BE (dispersion relation for a fiee particle). We shall see that at
time f, the wave packet still remains gaussian. Expression (15) can be transformed
by grouping, as above, all the k-dependent terms in the exponents into a perfect
square, We can then use (7), and we
63ne
Wx) = (=) RAT OR (16-a)
(o* +) a@ 42
where y is teal and independent of »
Tike 2he
g=-0- with tan 26 (16-b)
2m ‘ma?
Let us calculate the probability density |Y(x, 1)? of the particle at time 1. We
obtain:
a
a(x — Bo
: 1 2a’ iG = ‘) |
Wwe, of 5 8 )- ae ayy
1 ae ee)
Vo nat im
Let us show that the norm of the wave packet, J [Ox nf? dx, is not
time-dependent (we shall see in chapter III that this property results from the
fact that the Hamiltonian H of the particle is Hermitian). We could, to this end,
uuse (7) again in order to integrate expression (17) from — co to + co. It is
quicker to observe from expression (15) that the Fourier transform of (x, 1)
is given by
Ak, t) = 6 MM G( Ke, 0) «sy
atk, #) therefore obviously has the same norm as a(k. 0). Now the Parseval-Plancherel
equation tells us that (x, 1) and g(k, t) have the same norm, as do (x, 0) and g(k, 0).
From this we deduce that Y(x, #) has the same norm as p(x, 0)
b. _VELOGITY OF THE WAVE PACKET
We see i (17)
ic probability density ji, 1]? is a gaussian function,
centered at x = Vit, where the velocity ¥V, is defined by:
Y= ee (19)
We could have expected this result, in view of the general expression (C-32)
of chapter 1, which gives the group velocity Vg.
©. SPREADING OF THE WAVE PACKET
Let us take up formula (17) again. The width Ax(t) of the wave packet at
time 1, from definition (11), is equal to:
(20)enussian wave raceer @
We see (¢f. fig. 1) that the evolution of the wave packet is not confined to
a simple displacement at a velocity ¥%. The wave packet also undergoes a
deformation, When ¢ increases from — vo to 0, the width of the wave packet
decreases, reaching a minimum at 1 =0. Then, as 1 continues to increase,
Ax(1) grows without bound (spreading of the wave packet).
thats oF
aa | _
ON NO .
<0 0 1>0
rigune 1
For negative 1, the gaussian wave packet decreases in width as It propagates. At time 1 = 0, itis &
“minimum” wave packet : che product 4x. dp is equal ¢o 8/2. Then, for 1 > 0, the wave packet
spreads again as it propagates.
It can be scen in (17) that the height of the wave packet also varies,
but in opposition to the width, so the norm of (x, 1) remains constant.
The properties of the function g(k,¢) are completely different. In fact
ef. formula (18)]:
latk, 0] = la(k, | Ql)
Therefore. the average momentum of the wave packet (#X.) and its momentum
dispersion (hk) do not vary in time, We shall see later (cf. chap. III) that this
arises from the fact that the momentum is a constant of the motion for a free particle.
Physically, it is clear that since the free particle encounters no obstacle, the
anomentuin distribution cannot cimuge.
The existence of a momentum dispersion 4p = h4k = hi/a means that the
Ap a
velocity of the particle is only known to within 4v =P =". Imagine a
group of classical particles starting at time ¢ = 0 from the point x = 0, with
‘a velocity dispersion equal to Av. At time 1, the dispersion of their positions
will be 5x,
figure 2. Let us draw on the same graph the curve which gives the evolution in
time of 4x(1); when 1 becomes infinite, 4x(r) practically coincides with 6x,, [the
branch of the hyperbola which represents x(t) has for its asymptotes the straight
lines which correspond to 6x,,]. Thus, we can say that, when 1 is very large,
there exists a quasi-classical interpretation of the width 4x. On the other hand,
when ? approaches 0, Ax(t) takes on values which differ more and more
from 5x,,. The quantum particle must indeed constantly satisfy Heisenberg’s uncer-
h
= Aol] = a: this dispersion increases linearly with 1, as shown in
65@ comrisnen a,
tainty relation 4x. 4p > h/2 which, since 4p is fixed, imposes a lower limit
on dx. This corresponds to what can be seen in figure 2.
FIGURE 2
Variation in time of the width Ax of the wave packet of figure 1, For large ¢, 4x approaches the dis-
persion x., of the positions of a group of classical particles which left x = 0 at time 1 = 0 with a
velocity dispersion p/m.
(i)
66
COMMENTS:
The spreading of the packet of free waves is a general phenomenon
which is not limited to the special case studied here. It can be shown
that, for an arbitrary free wave packet, the variation in time of its
width has the shape shown in figure 2 (cf. exercise 4 of complement Ly,)-
In chapter T, a simple argument led us in (C-17) to Ax. Ak ~ 1, without making any
particular hypothesis about g(k), except for saying that g(k) has a peak of width Ak
whose shape is that of figure 3 of chapter I (which is indeed the ease in this complement),
Then how did we obtain 4x . dk > I (for example, for a gaussian wave packet when £
is large)?
OF course, this is only an apparent contradiction. In chapter I, in order to
find dx. dk = 1, we assumed in (C-13) that the argument a(X) of y(t ) could be approxi
‘mated by a linear function in the domain Ak. Thus we implicitly assumed a supplementary
luyputiesis. that tie uvuliucat isis uke « uegiigibie conuibutiou w te pimase of gi)
in the domain 4k. For example, for the terms which are of second order in (k — ko),
it is mecessury that:
Ke =]