Talk:Normalizable wave function

Text and/or other creative content from Normalizable wave function was copied or moved into Wave function with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

"All wave functions which represent real particles must be normalisable," We should note that this is true only for bound particles. Wavefunctions of scattered particles (e.g. unbound) can be periodic (at least asymptotically) over all space and never decay even for r-> infinity. In that case other normalization techniques must be used, such as confinement to a box or dirac delta normalization.

220.245.212.40 (talk) 06:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC) Um... someone who knows what to do needs to correct the equations. From the bold, red text I think there is an error... 220.245.212.40 (talk) 06:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is this article needed?

I strongly question the need for this article. Everything has been recently covered in the wavefunction article. This is a very short re-hash of one-dimensional cases. Should it be deleted, or merged with wavefunction, or the other way round? spill all normalization context from wavefunction to here?--Maschen (talk) 17:03, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~yes - for reasons below.~~-- F = q(E + v × B) 07:52, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually - I agree. It’s a fully and absolutely pointless article. There really is nothing to normalizing wavefunctions. Spilling content from wavefunction into here would break up a lot of continuity in that article, which concentrates on everything about wavefunctions as probability amplitudes and to introductory extent quantum states, including probability distributions and the immediate normalization conditions which follow. They fit in with the article so well it would be ruined if content was removed. All bits from here which do not overlap with wavefunction can be added (provided they are trimmed down to the essential minimum), such as the normalization invariance, but the remainder of this article is already covered. The current article was very padded and prosy about points which should be strieght-to-the-point anyway (before I edited it just now to try and make it better, but not further, due to the potential merge) - there is no point in wasting time on these things. You were right, after all. -- F = q(E + v × B) 15:25, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MERGE ABOUT TO BEGIN - DON'T EDIT YET-- F = q(E + v × B) 17:24, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Normalization formulae

~~See here.~~-- F = q(E + v × B) 07:52, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Forget this...-- F = q(E + v × B) 15:25, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]