Understanding the Schrodinger Equation: The Effects of Multiplying by a Constant

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the implications of multiplying a solution of the Schrödinger equation by a constant. Participants explore the linearity and homogeneity of the equation, examining whether this property allows for such transformations without altering the validity of the solution.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested
  • Homework-related

Main Points Raised

  • One participant requests clarification on why multiplying a solution by a constant does not change its validity as a solution to the Schrödinger equation.
  • Another participant suggests verifying the claim by substituting the modified state vector into the equation.
  • A participant provides the form of the Schrödinger equation and explains that its linear and homogeneous nature allows for the conclusion that if a particular solution exists, then multiplying it by a constant also yields a valid solution.
  • Further discussion introduces the general form of the Schrödinger equation and emphasizes the linearity of the operators involved, suggesting that constants can be factored out without affecting the equation.
  • One participant expresses a preference for allowing the original poster to derive insights independently, while another suggests that the thread might be better suited for a homework section.
  • There is a mention of the need for acknowledgment of understanding from the original poster before delving into detailed explanations.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the linearity of the Schrödinger equation and its implications for solutions, but there is a lack of consensus on the appropriateness of the thread's placement and the level of guidance to provide to the original poster.

Contextual Notes

Some participants express concern about the original poster's understanding of the problem, indicating that further clarification may be necessary. The discussion includes varying approaches to explaining concepts and differing opinions on how to facilitate learning.

ohhhnooo
Messages
10
Reaction score
0
can you explain this statement "if psi is a solution of a Schrödinger equation, then so is kpsi, where k is any constant".

why is that multplying psi by a constant does not its value?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Try to see whether that's true or not by simply plugging the new state vector into Schroedinger's equation.It shouldn't be too hard...

Daniel.
 
Just to remind you, Schrödinger's equation in one spatial dimension looks like this:

[tex]- \frac {\hbar^2} {2 m} \frac {\partial^2 \Psi} {\partial x^2} + V \Psi = i \hbar \frac {\partial \Psi} {\partial t}[/tex]

All the terms contain either psi itself, or one of its derivatives, therefore we call this a homogeneous differential equation. Also, no term contains powers of psi or of one of its derivatives, or combinations of psi and its derivatives, therefore we call this a linear differential equation.

The fact that Schrödinger's equation is linear and homogeneous guarantees that if if a particular psi is a solution, then k*psi is also a solution.
 
How about
[tex]\frac{d|\Psi\rangle}{dt}=\frac{1}{i\hbar}\hat{H}|\Psi\rangle[/tex]

,where [itex]\hat{H}[/itex] is a densly-defined,self adjoint LINEAR operator (in agreement with the second principle)... :wink:

Daniel.
 
Last edited:
If you look at the equation dextercioby has put up (that is the most general form of Schrödinger's equation), you will see that both operators that act upon [tex]|\psi\rangle[/tex] are linear. We have the result that, for linear operators

[tex]\hat{L}(\lambda\mathbf{a} + \mu\mathbf{b}) = \lambda\hat{L}\mathbf{a} + \mu\hat{L}\mathbf{b}[/tex]

What this means is that in the Schrödinger equation, if you replace [tex]|\psi\rangle[/tex] by [tex]k|\psi\rangle[/tex] you can take all the [tex]k[/tex]s out and so cancel them.
 
I emphasized the word "linear" and left to the OP to see what implications that fact would have.After all,it's better for him to figure out things by himself,as i think that would give him a feeling of satisfaction,too... :wink:


Daniel.
 
dextercioby said:
I emphasized the word "linear" and left to the OP to see what implications that fact would have.After all,it's better for him to figure out things by himself,as i think that would give him a feeling of satisfaction,too... :wink:


Daniel.

Daniel, I certainly agree with your reasoning here, but I humbly suggest that in that case the thread be moved to Homework. I sort of like to see different posters working things out one by one down a thread on this QM thread. Just my prejudice though.
 
SA,if u want u can move it to HM section,no problem on my behalf. :smile:

selfAdjoint said:
I sort of like to see different posters working things out one by one down a thread on this QM thread.

But,in fact,they are.Maybe my posts are too numerous,but i can't help it... :wink: :-p

Daniel.
 
Yes I do understand the need of the person to work it out for himself. But since we received no acknowledgment of his/her understanding the problem, I thought I should explain it in detail.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
3K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 143 ·
5
Replies
143
Views
13K