1

Impossibility of an event implies vanishing of it's probability. But the reverse is not true. This post in math stack exchange posts says why zero probability doesn't necessarily mean impossible events. Then why do we act like it is, in physics ,i.e., how is vanishing probability both necessary and sufficient for the impossibility of an event in physics?

As an example, the probability of choosing a specific real number from the set of all real numbers is zero but yet if someone really picks up that very number it turns out that the event was not truly impossible afterall...

Similarly, can a particle be found where wave-function vanishes identically? I mean whenever we integrate square modulus of a wavefunction in some interval and the result is found to be exactly zero, we interpret it as an impossibility of the particle to be in the region of integration. Is this interpretation correct? If yes, why so? If not, how should we correctly interpret zero probability generally in physics?

Qmechanic
  • 201,751
Manas Dogra
  • 1,050
  • Do you ever get 0 from the integration or just something very very close to 0? – shai horowitz Mar 23 '21 at 18:53
  • 3
    I can't think of an example in which an event with a very small (but non-zero) probability would be said to be impossible. It's very unlikely, and you may never observe it in your lifetime, but a non-zero probability implies that it's expected to occur in some finite number of trials. – Nuclear Hoagie Mar 23 '21 at 18:56
  • @shaihorowitz I am wanting to interpret the results where the integration yields exactly zero results. – Manas Dogra Mar 23 '21 at 19:20
  • @NuclearHoagie I removed that misleading sentence. – Manas Dogra Mar 23 '21 at 19:22
  • Assuming point masses, the probability density to find an atomic electron at the origin (nucleus) must be exactly zero, otherwise you would have an infinite Coulomb force. For that reason, the Coulomb wave function is zero at the origin.You could not even pick the origin as a possible location for the electron if you wanted. – Thomas Mar 23 '21 at 19:31
  • @Thomas so that means probability is zero, but that should not imply that we won't find the particle there mathematically. But we are told so...Why? – Manas Dogra Mar 23 '21 at 19:49
  • Closely related : https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/145166/ – Manas Dogra Mar 23 '21 at 19:50
  • 2
    One shouldn’t interpret 0 probability as impossibility of occurrence, but rather as impossibility of prediction. One cannot guess what will be the result of an event of probability 0 (making such a prediction will "always" fail). – Yvan Velenik Mar 23 '21 at 20:07
  • @Yvan Velenik Thanks. your comment exactly answers my question. But i will be looking for a more detailed answer if there is some at all. – Manas Dogra Mar 23 '21 at 20:39
  • @ManasDogra You won't find an electron at the center of an atom. It is mathematically excluded as it would yield an infinite force. The wave functions has zero probability elsewhere (basically the nodes of the wave), but this is physically more difficult to argue here. – Thomas Mar 23 '21 at 21:33
  • @YvanVelenik Impossibility of prediction means equal probability everywhere not 0 probability – Thomas Mar 23 '21 at 21:36
  • @Thomas : you are misunderstanding my comment. Consider a gaussian probability distribution over the real line. Choose your favorite number and then pick one at random using this distribution: they will (almost surely) not coincide. This is in this sense that you cannot predict the outcome. You will "never" guess right. – Yvan Velenik Mar 24 '21 at 06:22
  • @Thomas: This has nothing to do with the fact that the distribution is uniform, but with the fact that it is absolutely continuous. In fact, if you have a uniform distribution over a finite set, you can predict the outcome with positive probability: consider, for instance, the result of a fair coin flip. – Yvan Velenik Mar 24 '21 at 06:29
  • @YvanVelenik There are no uniform distributions in reality. Gaussian etc. distribution functions are continuous mathematical functions that approximate certain features of the real (discrete) distribution. Your argument is based on a feature that is outside the validity of this approximation. – Thomas Mar 24 '21 at 08:27
  • 1
    @Thomas The question is about interpretation of the mathematical modelling in physics, so your point is moot. But, in any case, when describing a gas, it certainly makes very much sense to use a continuous distribution. My point (it is not an argument, actually) is only to provide the OP with an alternative way of thinking about the meaning of zero-probability events and I fully stand by it. – Yvan Velenik Mar 24 '21 at 08:38

2 Answers2

3

The square of the wavefunction $\vert\psi(x)\vert^2$ is a probability density, not a probability. The probability of finding the system in a small bin of width $dx$ centred at $x_0$ is very nearly $\vert\psi(x_0)\vert^2 dx$ and thus very nearly $0$ if $\vert\psi(x_0)\vert^2= 0$, but the exact calculation yields $$ P=\int_{x_0-dx/2}^{x_0+dx/2} dx \vert\psi(x)\vert^2 $$ which will be vanishingly small but nevertheless non-zero even if $\vert\psi(x_0)\vert^2=0$ since there will presumably be nearby point in the interval $[x_0-dx/2,x_0+dx/2]$ where $\vert\psi(x_0)\vert^2\ne 0$ exactly.

Note that this is a feature of continuous probability distributions where the distribution is $0$ at isolated points. If the $\vert\psi(x)\vert^2$ is exactly $0$ on the interval, the probability of finding the system in that interval is exactly $0$.

If instead you are dealing with discrete outcomes, and - say - you prepare a system in the $\vert \uparrow \rangle$ state, there is $0$ and exactly $0$ probability of finding it in the $\vert \downarrow \rangle$ state.

ZeroTheHero
  • 45,515
  • So, do you mean there isn't any physical example where the $P$ is exactly zero? Another thing--you say If the $|\psi(x)|^2$ is exactly 0 on the interval, the probability of finding the system in that interval is exactly 0.--my question is does this exact 0 probability mean that we won't find the particle in the interval? Why so? – Manas Dogra Mar 23 '21 at 19:25
  • It may seem obvious that probability zero means we won't find the particle by definition. But the math stack exchange post and the example in my question says this may not be so...Probability zero may not mean impossibility of the event...The main confusion lies there :) – Manas Dogra Mar 23 '21 at 19:27
  • I think this has something to do with almost never – Manas Dogra Mar 23 '21 at 19:49
  • @ManasDogra if it is $0$ on a finite interval, then it is exactly $0$ on the interval: you will not find the system there at all since $\int dx \vert\psi(x)\vert^2=0$ on the interval. If it is $0$ at one or more points on the interval then $\int dx \vert\psi(x)\vert^2\ne 0$. In other words, the integral of a non-negative function that is zero at some points in an interval is no zero but the integral of a function that is $0$ over an interval is $0$ when integrated over the interval. – ZeroTheHero Mar 23 '21 at 19:59
  • 1
    Yes yes i got that, but my real question is INTERPRETING the exactly zero probability of the event when it happens...does it imply we won't find the particle in the interval? It should not atleast mathematically but often in physics we say the particle won't be found in that interval... – Manas Dogra Mar 23 '21 at 20:36
  • 1
    If the probability density is exactly $0$ everywhere on the interval you will never find it on that interval. There is no interpretation here. The only possible confusion is if the probability is vanishingly small (but not exactly $0$). Colloquially maybe some use vanishingly small as synonym of $0$ but they are strictly not the same. – ZeroTheHero Mar 23 '21 at 20:39
  • Why is it that zero probability should imply non existentence of the particle in the interval?... Zero probability doesn't mean impossibility of an event. – Manas Dogra Mar 23 '21 at 20:41
  • vanishingly small is not $0$. The system is very unlikely to be found in the interval but that’s not $0$. (we must be talking at cross-purposes...). If there is $0$ probability the event will not happen. – ZeroTheHero Mar 23 '21 at 20:42
  • If it is strictly $0$ over the interval then the system cannot be found in that interval. If your system is an electron it cannot be in the interval. The “existence” (whatever that means) of the electron in that interval is impossible: you can do an arbitrary amount of measurements and the particle will never be on the interval, so you conclude that, for a system prepared in that way, the electron “does not exist” over the interval since you never find it there. – ZeroTheHero Mar 23 '21 at 20:48
  • Yes I think we are talking about different things....Actually I said vanishing probability (=0) not vanishingly small...maybe it sounds like a wrong phrase, so i edited the above comment....I am keen to know about strictly zero probability...and your last sentence of the above comment is precisely why I put the math stack exchange post in my original question which asserts why the zero probability doesn't imply the impossibility of the event. – Manas Dogra Mar 23 '21 at 20:53
  • 1
    If the probability density is exactly $0$ on some interval, then the particle will be found outside that interval almost surely, which does not necessarily mean it is impossible to find the particle in that interval. – Sandejo Mar 23 '21 at 20:56
  • This is not really a physics question - more a maths question about limits etc. If you want to understand this topic, you probably need to spend some time with our maths brethren. Back to physics: in the case of QM, there can be specific points in space where the probability of finding a particle is zero, but everywhere else is non-zero. If a measuring device says the position of an particle $x = a$, it really means $x - \epsilon < x < a + \epsilon$. i.e. the particle is in some region. I.e. your question is a non-starter as it is not physically meaningful. – shaunokane001 Mar 23 '21 at 20:58
  • @ZeroTheHero If it is strictly 0 over the interval then the system cannot be found in that interval-Why so? Why does this happen that whenever probability is zero we won't be able to find the system in the interval? Sandejo clarifies my point – Manas Dogra Mar 23 '21 at 21:00
  • @Sandejo If the probably is exactly $0$ everywhere on the interval then why almost surely outside of it? – ZeroTheHero Mar 23 '21 at 21:42
  • @Sandejo when I mean the density is exactly $0$ I exclude points of measure $0$. – ZeroTheHero Mar 23 '21 at 21:49
  • Almost surely means that the probability is exactly $1$. Surely means that the event is the entire space of elementary outcomes, which you don't know here. – Sandejo Mar 23 '21 at 22:48
  • @Sandejo point taken but I’m not sure that in this discussion the space of outcomes is unknown. – ZeroTheHero Mar 23 '21 at 23:01
1

In probability theory, an event is possible if it is non-empty. In the context of random variables, we can say that it is possible for a random variable $\xi$ to take on the value $x$ if $\xi(\omega)=x$ for some $\omega\in\Omega$, where $\Omega$ is the space of elementary outcomes in the probability space on which $\xi$ is defined.

In physics, we don't have access to probability spaces; we only have probability distributions. In other words, if we have some random variable $X$ representing the outcome of a position measurement of a particle in some state $\lvert\alpha\rangle$, we can find the probability density of $X$ by $p_X(x)=\lvert\langle x\vert\alpha\rangle\rvert^2$, but this density does not uniquely define a random variable on a probability space, so we can consider $X$ to be any random variable with this density. Therefore, we do not actually have sufficient information to say that it is impossible to find the particle in a node (point where the wavefunction vanishes). However, it is also important to remember that any measurement you make is going to have some non-zero uncertainty, so there isn't really any need to worry about the fact that individual points have zero probability, since in practise, you can really only measure the particle to be in an interval, rather than at a particular point.

Sandejo
  • 5,478
  • Therefore, we do not actually have sufficient information to say that it is impossible to find the particle in a node---This subtle point along with the fact that 0 probability in some interval doesn't mean the particle cannot be in that interval is often not mentioned in books! – Manas Dogra Mar 23 '21 at 21:20
  • Related question: Can there be a physical situation where the wavefunction is 0 in a subinterval of the domain of definition of the problem? I cannot think of one because if it is 0 in some sub interval but not everywhere then the function must be (I think) non differentiable at the point where it suddenly ceases to be zero and hence have undefined momentum at those points...am i right in this reasoning? – Manas Dogra Mar 23 '21 at 21:26
  • 1
    @ManasDogra You can compare the node of the wave function to the node of a classical standing wave. And the amplitude and energy of a standing wave at a node is permanently zero. – Thomas Mar 23 '21 at 21:56