Do atomic orbitals “pulse” in time?Atomic Orbitals, Singlets, TripletsIs there any significance of atomic orbitals?Atomic orbitalsElectron as a standing wave and its stabilityTime dependent and time independent Schrödinger equationsNotation of complex valued atomic orbitalsWhy do non-hydrogen atomic orbitals have the same degeneracy structure as hydrogen orbitals?Atomic orbitals and complex wavefunctionatomic orbitals calculation in Heisenberg pictureString behavior in electron orbitals?

Why does string strummed with finger sound different from the one strummed with pick?

How come Arya Stark didn't burn in Game of Thrones Season 8 Episode 5

Can a person still be an Orthodox Jew and believe that the Torah contains narratives that are not scientifically correct?

How does this piece of code determine array size without using sizeof( )?

How can I safely determine the output voltage and current of a transformer?

Why would you put your input amplifier in front of your filtering for and ECG signal?

Was the dragon prowess intentionally downplayed in S08E04?

Is Big Ben visible from the British museum?

Cycling to work - 30mile return

Why is so much ransomware breakable?

Failing students when it might cause them economic ruin

AD: OU for system administrator accounts

Divisor Rich and Poor Numbers

Is Precocious Apprentice enough for Mystic Theurge?

Square spiral in Mathematica

Would it be fair to use 1d30 (instead of rolling 2d20 and taking the higher die) for advantage rolls?

Resistor Selection to retain same brightness in LED PWM circuit

What formula to chose a nonlinear formula?

Is there an academic word that means "to split hairs over"?

Could a space colony 1g from the sun work?

A person lacking money who shows off a lot

How can I make dummy text (like lipsum) grey?

Why would company (decision makers) wait for someone to retire, rather than lay them off, when their role is no longer needed?

What would a Dragon have to exhale to cause rain?



Do atomic orbitals “pulse” in time?


Atomic Orbitals, Singlets, TripletsIs there any significance of atomic orbitals?Atomic orbitalsElectron as a standing wave and its stabilityTime dependent and time independent Schrödinger equationsNotation of complex valued atomic orbitalsWhy do non-hydrogen atomic orbitals have the same degeneracy structure as hydrogen orbitals?Atomic orbitals and complex wavefunctionatomic orbitals calculation in Heisenberg pictureString behavior in electron orbitals?













9












$begingroup$


I understand that atomic orbitals are solutions to the time-independent Schrödinger equation, and that they are are analogous to standing waves ("stationary states"). However, even a standing wave has motion, in the sense that (at points other than the nodes) the amplitude varies with time. My question is, do atomic orbitals or spherical harmonics, as standing waves in 3D space, also have such motion? Intuitively, do they "pulse" or "breathe"?



(More precisely, my question is in regard to the behavior of an isosurface of an orbital, the often-pictured shell containing some arbitrary probability, as atomic orbitals themselves have infinite spatial extent.)










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$
















    9












    $begingroup$


    I understand that atomic orbitals are solutions to the time-independent Schrödinger equation, and that they are are analogous to standing waves ("stationary states"). However, even a standing wave has motion, in the sense that (at points other than the nodes) the amplitude varies with time. My question is, do atomic orbitals or spherical harmonics, as standing waves in 3D space, also have such motion? Intuitively, do they "pulse" or "breathe"?



    (More precisely, my question is in regard to the behavior of an isosurface of an orbital, the often-pictured shell containing some arbitrary probability, as atomic orbitals themselves have infinite spatial extent.)










    share|cite|improve this question











    $endgroup$














      9












      9








      9


      1



      $begingroup$


      I understand that atomic orbitals are solutions to the time-independent Schrödinger equation, and that they are are analogous to standing waves ("stationary states"). However, even a standing wave has motion, in the sense that (at points other than the nodes) the amplitude varies with time. My question is, do atomic orbitals or spherical harmonics, as standing waves in 3D space, also have such motion? Intuitively, do they "pulse" or "breathe"?



      (More precisely, my question is in regard to the behavior of an isosurface of an orbital, the often-pictured shell containing some arbitrary probability, as atomic orbitals themselves have infinite spatial extent.)










      share|cite|improve this question











      $endgroup$




      I understand that atomic orbitals are solutions to the time-independent Schrödinger equation, and that they are are analogous to standing waves ("stationary states"). However, even a standing wave has motion, in the sense that (at points other than the nodes) the amplitude varies with time. My question is, do atomic orbitals or spherical harmonics, as standing waves in 3D space, also have such motion? Intuitively, do they "pulse" or "breathe"?



      (More precisely, my question is in regard to the behavior of an isosurface of an orbital, the often-pictured shell containing some arbitrary probability, as atomic orbitals themselves have infinite spatial extent.)







      quantum-mechanics wavefunction schroedinger-equation time-evolution orbitals






      share|cite|improve this question















      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited May 11 at 19:34









      Elio Fabri

      4,0551214




      4,0551214










      asked May 11 at 15:06









      electronpusherelectronpusher

      32518




      32518




















          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          11












          $begingroup$

          Short answer: yes, but only the phase factor has the time dependence. The spatial profile is constant in time because the eigenstates of the Hamiltonian are Stationary states.



          Maths:



          The time dependent Schroedinger equation looks like this:



          $$ ihbar fracpartial Psipartial t = H Psi = left ( -frachbar^2 2 mfracpartial^2partial x^2 + V(x,t) right ) Psi(x,t) ,$$



          you attempt a solution via separation of variables: $Psi(x,t) = psi(x) T(t)$, plug it in.



          If the potential $V$ is time independent such that $V(x,t) = V(x)$, then the equation above splits into two independent equations:



          $$left ( -frachbar^2 2 mfracmathrmd^2mathrmd x^2 + V(x) right ) psi(x) = E psi(x), quad textTime independent Schroedinger equation $$



          and:



          $$ ihbarfracmathrmd Tmathrmd t = ET implies T(t) propto e^-iEt/hbar = e^-iomega t.$$



          With $E$ a constant identified with energy.



          Hence the full solution will be $Psi(x,t) = psi(x) e^-iomega t$, with the time dependence only in the phase factor.



          Any physical observable depends on $|Psi|^2 propto |psi(x)|^2$ so the time dependence of the phase factor does not affect any of the physics.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$








          • 1




            $begingroup$
            "so the time dependence of the phase factor does not affect any of the physics." I understand that but then what is the phase factor 'good for'? Thanks for the nice answer. +1 from me.
            $endgroup$
            – Gert
            May 11 at 15:27






          • 5




            $begingroup$
            Well the phase is irrelevant only if you are in a definite state. IF you are in a superposition of states $E_1$ and $E_2$, then the observables will have a time dependence $(E_1 -E_2)t/hbar$. This affects the dyanmics. And will also affect the chemical bonds, see for instance here: chemistry.stackexchange.com/questions/35212/…
            $endgroup$
            – SuperCiocia
            May 11 at 15:33










          • $begingroup$
            Ok, that's very clear.
            $endgroup$
            – Gert
            May 11 at 17:15










          • $begingroup$
            I think in $Lne 0$ states, the phase factors lead to probability current "orbiting" the nucleus, though nothing is changing.
            $endgroup$
            – JEB
            May 11 at 19:35










          • $begingroup$
            No any stationary state has no probability current, no matter its quantum numbers. You need a superposition in order to have a non zero probability current
            $endgroup$
            – SuperCiocia
            May 11 at 19:54


















          2












          $begingroup$

          No, no observable quantity changes over time for a stationary state. The analogy between stationary states in quantum mechanics and standing waves isn't very close.



          Whether or not a stationary quantum state has any time dependence at all depends on which mathematical formalism you're using. In the "pure state" or "state vector" formalism, which I suspect you're using at this stage in your physics education, the state vector does formally oscillate in time through its complex phase, which is vaguely similar to a standing wave (although unlike with a standing wave, the actual frequency of oscillation is completely unmeasurable). In the "density matrix" formalism, the state operator is completely time-independent and doesn't have any oscillating phases, which corresponds to the fact that nothing physically measurable is changing over time.



          In my opinion, the state-vector formalism is mathematically simpler but the density-matrix formalism is conceptually simpler (you don't have to "remember to forget about the phase factor"), so which one is better depends on the use case and personal taste.



          That's for pure states; for mixed states, the density-matrix formalism is both mathematically and conceptually simpler, and the state-vector formalism is only useful for rather esoteric applications. (At this stage in your education, you probably haven't learned about pure and mixed states yet. Suffice it to say that all the states you've probably studied so far have been pure states, and there's a slightly more general notion called a "mixed state" that you may eventually learn about.)






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$













            Your Answer








            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%2f479392%2fdo-atomic-orbitals-pulse-in-time%23new-answer', 'question_page');

            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown

























            2 Answers
            2






            active

            oldest

            votes








            2 Answers
            2






            active

            oldest

            votes









            active

            oldest

            votes






            active

            oldest

            votes









            11












            $begingroup$

            Short answer: yes, but only the phase factor has the time dependence. The spatial profile is constant in time because the eigenstates of the Hamiltonian are Stationary states.



            Maths:



            The time dependent Schroedinger equation looks like this:



            $$ ihbar fracpartial Psipartial t = H Psi = left ( -frachbar^2 2 mfracpartial^2partial x^2 + V(x,t) right ) Psi(x,t) ,$$



            you attempt a solution via separation of variables: $Psi(x,t) = psi(x) T(t)$, plug it in.



            If the potential $V$ is time independent such that $V(x,t) = V(x)$, then the equation above splits into two independent equations:



            $$left ( -frachbar^2 2 mfracmathrmd^2mathrmd x^2 + V(x) right ) psi(x) = E psi(x), quad textTime independent Schroedinger equation $$



            and:



            $$ ihbarfracmathrmd Tmathrmd t = ET implies T(t) propto e^-iEt/hbar = e^-iomega t.$$



            With $E$ a constant identified with energy.



            Hence the full solution will be $Psi(x,t) = psi(x) e^-iomega t$, with the time dependence only in the phase factor.



            Any physical observable depends on $|Psi|^2 propto |psi(x)|^2$ so the time dependence of the phase factor does not affect any of the physics.






            share|cite|improve this answer











            $endgroup$








            • 1




              $begingroup$
              "so the time dependence of the phase factor does not affect any of the physics." I understand that but then what is the phase factor 'good for'? Thanks for the nice answer. +1 from me.
              $endgroup$
              – Gert
              May 11 at 15:27






            • 5




              $begingroup$
              Well the phase is irrelevant only if you are in a definite state. IF you are in a superposition of states $E_1$ and $E_2$, then the observables will have a time dependence $(E_1 -E_2)t/hbar$. This affects the dyanmics. And will also affect the chemical bonds, see for instance here: chemistry.stackexchange.com/questions/35212/…
              $endgroup$
              – SuperCiocia
              May 11 at 15:33










            • $begingroup$
              Ok, that's very clear.
              $endgroup$
              – Gert
              May 11 at 17:15










            • $begingroup$
              I think in $Lne 0$ states, the phase factors lead to probability current "orbiting" the nucleus, though nothing is changing.
              $endgroup$
              – JEB
              May 11 at 19:35










            • $begingroup$
              No any stationary state has no probability current, no matter its quantum numbers. You need a superposition in order to have a non zero probability current
              $endgroup$
              – SuperCiocia
              May 11 at 19:54















            11












            $begingroup$

            Short answer: yes, but only the phase factor has the time dependence. The spatial profile is constant in time because the eigenstates of the Hamiltonian are Stationary states.



            Maths:



            The time dependent Schroedinger equation looks like this:



            $$ ihbar fracpartial Psipartial t = H Psi = left ( -frachbar^2 2 mfracpartial^2partial x^2 + V(x,t) right ) Psi(x,t) ,$$



            you attempt a solution via separation of variables: $Psi(x,t) = psi(x) T(t)$, plug it in.



            If the potential $V$ is time independent such that $V(x,t) = V(x)$, then the equation above splits into two independent equations:



            $$left ( -frachbar^2 2 mfracmathrmd^2mathrmd x^2 + V(x) right ) psi(x) = E psi(x), quad textTime independent Schroedinger equation $$



            and:



            $$ ihbarfracmathrmd Tmathrmd t = ET implies T(t) propto e^-iEt/hbar = e^-iomega t.$$



            With $E$ a constant identified with energy.



            Hence the full solution will be $Psi(x,t) = psi(x) e^-iomega t$, with the time dependence only in the phase factor.



            Any physical observable depends on $|Psi|^2 propto |psi(x)|^2$ so the time dependence of the phase factor does not affect any of the physics.






            share|cite|improve this answer











            $endgroup$








            • 1




              $begingroup$
              "so the time dependence of the phase factor does not affect any of the physics." I understand that but then what is the phase factor 'good for'? Thanks for the nice answer. +1 from me.
              $endgroup$
              – Gert
              May 11 at 15:27






            • 5




              $begingroup$
              Well the phase is irrelevant only if you are in a definite state. IF you are in a superposition of states $E_1$ and $E_2$, then the observables will have a time dependence $(E_1 -E_2)t/hbar$. This affects the dyanmics. And will also affect the chemical bonds, see for instance here: chemistry.stackexchange.com/questions/35212/…
              $endgroup$
              – SuperCiocia
              May 11 at 15:33










            • $begingroup$
              Ok, that's very clear.
              $endgroup$
              – Gert
              May 11 at 17:15










            • $begingroup$
              I think in $Lne 0$ states, the phase factors lead to probability current "orbiting" the nucleus, though nothing is changing.
              $endgroup$
              – JEB
              May 11 at 19:35










            • $begingroup$
              No any stationary state has no probability current, no matter its quantum numbers. You need a superposition in order to have a non zero probability current
              $endgroup$
              – SuperCiocia
              May 11 at 19:54













            11












            11








            11





            $begingroup$

            Short answer: yes, but only the phase factor has the time dependence. The spatial profile is constant in time because the eigenstates of the Hamiltonian are Stationary states.



            Maths:



            The time dependent Schroedinger equation looks like this:



            $$ ihbar fracpartial Psipartial t = H Psi = left ( -frachbar^2 2 mfracpartial^2partial x^2 + V(x,t) right ) Psi(x,t) ,$$



            you attempt a solution via separation of variables: $Psi(x,t) = psi(x) T(t)$, plug it in.



            If the potential $V$ is time independent such that $V(x,t) = V(x)$, then the equation above splits into two independent equations:



            $$left ( -frachbar^2 2 mfracmathrmd^2mathrmd x^2 + V(x) right ) psi(x) = E psi(x), quad textTime independent Schroedinger equation $$



            and:



            $$ ihbarfracmathrmd Tmathrmd t = ET implies T(t) propto e^-iEt/hbar = e^-iomega t.$$



            With $E$ a constant identified with energy.



            Hence the full solution will be $Psi(x,t) = psi(x) e^-iomega t$, with the time dependence only in the phase factor.



            Any physical observable depends on $|Psi|^2 propto |psi(x)|^2$ so the time dependence of the phase factor does not affect any of the physics.






            share|cite|improve this answer











            $endgroup$



            Short answer: yes, but only the phase factor has the time dependence. The spatial profile is constant in time because the eigenstates of the Hamiltonian are Stationary states.



            Maths:



            The time dependent Schroedinger equation looks like this:



            $$ ihbar fracpartial Psipartial t = H Psi = left ( -frachbar^2 2 mfracpartial^2partial x^2 + V(x,t) right ) Psi(x,t) ,$$



            you attempt a solution via separation of variables: $Psi(x,t) = psi(x) T(t)$, plug it in.



            If the potential $V$ is time independent such that $V(x,t) = V(x)$, then the equation above splits into two independent equations:



            $$left ( -frachbar^2 2 mfracmathrmd^2mathrmd x^2 + V(x) right ) psi(x) = E psi(x), quad textTime independent Schroedinger equation $$



            and:



            $$ ihbarfracmathrmd Tmathrmd t = ET implies T(t) propto e^-iEt/hbar = e^-iomega t.$$



            With $E$ a constant identified with energy.



            Hence the full solution will be $Psi(x,t) = psi(x) e^-iomega t$, with the time dependence only in the phase factor.



            Any physical observable depends on $|Psi|^2 propto |psi(x)|^2$ so the time dependence of the phase factor does not affect any of the physics.







            share|cite|improve this answer














            share|cite|improve this answer



            share|cite|improve this answer








            edited May 11 at 19:35









            Elio Fabri

            4,0551214




            4,0551214










            answered May 11 at 15:16









            SuperCiociaSuperCiocia

            6,55673891




            6,55673891







            • 1




              $begingroup$
              "so the time dependence of the phase factor does not affect any of the physics." I understand that but then what is the phase factor 'good for'? Thanks for the nice answer. +1 from me.
              $endgroup$
              – Gert
              May 11 at 15:27






            • 5




              $begingroup$
              Well the phase is irrelevant only if you are in a definite state. IF you are in a superposition of states $E_1$ and $E_2$, then the observables will have a time dependence $(E_1 -E_2)t/hbar$. This affects the dyanmics. And will also affect the chemical bonds, see for instance here: chemistry.stackexchange.com/questions/35212/…
              $endgroup$
              – SuperCiocia
              May 11 at 15:33










            • $begingroup$
              Ok, that's very clear.
              $endgroup$
              – Gert
              May 11 at 17:15










            • $begingroup$
              I think in $Lne 0$ states, the phase factors lead to probability current "orbiting" the nucleus, though nothing is changing.
              $endgroup$
              – JEB
              May 11 at 19:35










            • $begingroup$
              No any stationary state has no probability current, no matter its quantum numbers. You need a superposition in order to have a non zero probability current
              $endgroup$
              – SuperCiocia
              May 11 at 19:54












            • 1




              $begingroup$
              "so the time dependence of the phase factor does not affect any of the physics." I understand that but then what is the phase factor 'good for'? Thanks for the nice answer. +1 from me.
              $endgroup$
              – Gert
              May 11 at 15:27






            • 5




              $begingroup$
              Well the phase is irrelevant only if you are in a definite state. IF you are in a superposition of states $E_1$ and $E_2$, then the observables will have a time dependence $(E_1 -E_2)t/hbar$. This affects the dyanmics. And will also affect the chemical bonds, see for instance here: chemistry.stackexchange.com/questions/35212/…
              $endgroup$
              – SuperCiocia
              May 11 at 15:33










            • $begingroup$
              Ok, that's very clear.
              $endgroup$
              – Gert
              May 11 at 17:15










            • $begingroup$
              I think in $Lne 0$ states, the phase factors lead to probability current "orbiting" the nucleus, though nothing is changing.
              $endgroup$
              – JEB
              May 11 at 19:35










            • $begingroup$
              No any stationary state has no probability current, no matter its quantum numbers. You need a superposition in order to have a non zero probability current
              $endgroup$
              – SuperCiocia
              May 11 at 19:54







            1




            1




            $begingroup$
            "so the time dependence of the phase factor does not affect any of the physics." I understand that but then what is the phase factor 'good for'? Thanks for the nice answer. +1 from me.
            $endgroup$
            – Gert
            May 11 at 15:27




            $begingroup$
            "so the time dependence of the phase factor does not affect any of the physics." I understand that but then what is the phase factor 'good for'? Thanks for the nice answer. +1 from me.
            $endgroup$
            – Gert
            May 11 at 15:27




            5




            5




            $begingroup$
            Well the phase is irrelevant only if you are in a definite state. IF you are in a superposition of states $E_1$ and $E_2$, then the observables will have a time dependence $(E_1 -E_2)t/hbar$. This affects the dyanmics. And will also affect the chemical bonds, see for instance here: chemistry.stackexchange.com/questions/35212/…
            $endgroup$
            – SuperCiocia
            May 11 at 15:33




            $begingroup$
            Well the phase is irrelevant only if you are in a definite state. IF you are in a superposition of states $E_1$ and $E_2$, then the observables will have a time dependence $(E_1 -E_2)t/hbar$. This affects the dyanmics. And will also affect the chemical bonds, see for instance here: chemistry.stackexchange.com/questions/35212/…
            $endgroup$
            – SuperCiocia
            May 11 at 15:33












            $begingroup$
            Ok, that's very clear.
            $endgroup$
            – Gert
            May 11 at 17:15




            $begingroup$
            Ok, that's very clear.
            $endgroup$
            – Gert
            May 11 at 17:15












            $begingroup$
            I think in $Lne 0$ states, the phase factors lead to probability current "orbiting" the nucleus, though nothing is changing.
            $endgroup$
            – JEB
            May 11 at 19:35




            $begingroup$
            I think in $Lne 0$ states, the phase factors lead to probability current "orbiting" the nucleus, though nothing is changing.
            $endgroup$
            – JEB
            May 11 at 19:35












            $begingroup$
            No any stationary state has no probability current, no matter its quantum numbers. You need a superposition in order to have a non zero probability current
            $endgroup$
            – SuperCiocia
            May 11 at 19:54




            $begingroup$
            No any stationary state has no probability current, no matter its quantum numbers. You need a superposition in order to have a non zero probability current
            $endgroup$
            – SuperCiocia
            May 11 at 19:54











            2












            $begingroup$

            No, no observable quantity changes over time for a stationary state. The analogy between stationary states in quantum mechanics and standing waves isn't very close.



            Whether or not a stationary quantum state has any time dependence at all depends on which mathematical formalism you're using. In the "pure state" or "state vector" formalism, which I suspect you're using at this stage in your physics education, the state vector does formally oscillate in time through its complex phase, which is vaguely similar to a standing wave (although unlike with a standing wave, the actual frequency of oscillation is completely unmeasurable). In the "density matrix" formalism, the state operator is completely time-independent and doesn't have any oscillating phases, which corresponds to the fact that nothing physically measurable is changing over time.



            In my opinion, the state-vector formalism is mathematically simpler but the density-matrix formalism is conceptually simpler (you don't have to "remember to forget about the phase factor"), so which one is better depends on the use case and personal taste.



            That's for pure states; for mixed states, the density-matrix formalism is both mathematically and conceptually simpler, and the state-vector formalism is only useful for rather esoteric applications. (At this stage in your education, you probably haven't learned about pure and mixed states yet. Suffice it to say that all the states you've probably studied so far have been pure states, and there's a slightly more general notion called a "mixed state" that you may eventually learn about.)






            share|cite|improve this answer









            $endgroup$

















              2












              $begingroup$

              No, no observable quantity changes over time for a stationary state. The analogy between stationary states in quantum mechanics and standing waves isn't very close.



              Whether or not a stationary quantum state has any time dependence at all depends on which mathematical formalism you're using. In the "pure state" or "state vector" formalism, which I suspect you're using at this stage in your physics education, the state vector does formally oscillate in time through its complex phase, which is vaguely similar to a standing wave (although unlike with a standing wave, the actual frequency of oscillation is completely unmeasurable). In the "density matrix" formalism, the state operator is completely time-independent and doesn't have any oscillating phases, which corresponds to the fact that nothing physically measurable is changing over time.



              In my opinion, the state-vector formalism is mathematically simpler but the density-matrix formalism is conceptually simpler (you don't have to "remember to forget about the phase factor"), so which one is better depends on the use case and personal taste.



              That's for pure states; for mixed states, the density-matrix formalism is both mathematically and conceptually simpler, and the state-vector formalism is only useful for rather esoteric applications. (At this stage in your education, you probably haven't learned about pure and mixed states yet. Suffice it to say that all the states you've probably studied so far have been pure states, and there's a slightly more general notion called a "mixed state" that you may eventually learn about.)






              share|cite|improve this answer









              $endgroup$















                2












                2








                2





                $begingroup$

                No, no observable quantity changes over time for a stationary state. The analogy between stationary states in quantum mechanics and standing waves isn't very close.



                Whether or not a stationary quantum state has any time dependence at all depends on which mathematical formalism you're using. In the "pure state" or "state vector" formalism, which I suspect you're using at this stage in your physics education, the state vector does formally oscillate in time through its complex phase, which is vaguely similar to a standing wave (although unlike with a standing wave, the actual frequency of oscillation is completely unmeasurable). In the "density matrix" formalism, the state operator is completely time-independent and doesn't have any oscillating phases, which corresponds to the fact that nothing physically measurable is changing over time.



                In my opinion, the state-vector formalism is mathematically simpler but the density-matrix formalism is conceptually simpler (you don't have to "remember to forget about the phase factor"), so which one is better depends on the use case and personal taste.



                That's for pure states; for mixed states, the density-matrix formalism is both mathematically and conceptually simpler, and the state-vector formalism is only useful for rather esoteric applications. (At this stage in your education, you probably haven't learned about pure and mixed states yet. Suffice it to say that all the states you've probably studied so far have been pure states, and there's a slightly more general notion called a "mixed state" that you may eventually learn about.)






                share|cite|improve this answer









                $endgroup$



                No, no observable quantity changes over time for a stationary state. The analogy between stationary states in quantum mechanics and standing waves isn't very close.



                Whether or not a stationary quantum state has any time dependence at all depends on which mathematical formalism you're using. In the "pure state" or "state vector" formalism, which I suspect you're using at this stage in your physics education, the state vector does formally oscillate in time through its complex phase, which is vaguely similar to a standing wave (although unlike with a standing wave, the actual frequency of oscillation is completely unmeasurable). In the "density matrix" formalism, the state operator is completely time-independent and doesn't have any oscillating phases, which corresponds to the fact that nothing physically measurable is changing over time.



                In my opinion, the state-vector formalism is mathematically simpler but the density-matrix formalism is conceptually simpler (you don't have to "remember to forget about the phase factor"), so which one is better depends on the use case and personal taste.



                That's for pure states; for mixed states, the density-matrix formalism is both mathematically and conceptually simpler, and the state-vector formalism is only useful for rather esoteric applications. (At this stage in your education, you probably haven't learned about pure and mixed states yet. Suffice it to say that all the states you've probably studied so far have been pure states, and there's a slightly more general notion called a "mixed state" that you may eventually learn about.)







                share|cite|improve this answer












                share|cite|improve this answer



                share|cite|improve this answer










                answered May 11 at 16:28









                tparkertparker

                24.4k151129




                24.4k151129



























                    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%2f479392%2fdo-atomic-orbitals-pulse-in-time%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

                    Category:9 (number) SubcategoriesMedia in category "9 (number)"Navigation menuUpload mediaGND ID: 4485639-8Library of Congress authority ID: sh85091979ReasonatorScholiaStatistics

                    Circuit construction for execution of conditional statements using least significant bitHow are two different registers being used as “control”?How exactly is the stated composite state of the two registers being produced using the $R_zz$ controlled rotations?Efficiently performing controlled rotations in HHLWould this quantum algorithm implementation work?How to prepare a superposed states of odd integers from $1$ to $sqrtN$?Why is this implementation of the order finding algorithm not working?Circuit construction for Hamiltonian simulationHow can I invert the least significant bit of a certain term of a superposed state?Implementing an oracleImplementing a controlled sum operation

                    Magento 2 “No Payment Methods” in Admin New OrderHow to integrate Paypal Express Checkout with the Magento APIMagento 1.5 - Sales > Order > edit order and shipping methods disappearAuto Invoice Check/Money Order Payment methodAdd more simple payment methods?Shipping methods not showingWhat should I do to change payment methods if changing the configuration has no effects?1.9 - No Payment Methods showing upMy Payment Methods not Showing for downloadable/virtual product when checkout?Magento2 API to access internal payment methodHow to call an existing payment methods in the registration form?