How do we normalize an odd function in the Schrodinger equation?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter CollectiveRocker
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Normalization
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the normalization of an odd function in the context of the Schrödinger equation, specifically addressing the function lψl^2 = Axe^((-x^2)/2). Participants explore methods for normalization, the implications of symmetry, and the nature of the wave function.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests that normalization involves setting the integral of the wave function squared equal to 1, but questions how to approach the specific function given.
  • Another participant provides an integral formula that could be useful for normalization, noting that the function is symmetric and can be integrated over specific limits.
  • Some participants argue that the function is not symmetric due to the odd nature of x and the even nature of the exponential, leading to the conclusion that integration from -∞ to +∞ results in zero.
  • There is a discussion about whether the function represents the wave function itself or its square, with some suggesting it could be a trial wave function in spherical coordinates.
  • One participant emphasizes that normalization is about ensuring existence rather than maximizing probabilities.
  • Another participant acknowledges the complexity of the function and its implications for normalization, suggesting that the region of interest is limited to 0 to +∞.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the symmetry of the function and the appropriate limits for integration. There is no consensus on the interpretation of the function as a wave function or its squared form, and the discussion remains unresolved regarding the best approach to normalization.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the function's odd and even characteristics complicate the normalization process, and there are unresolved mathematical steps regarding the integration limits and the nature of the wave function.

CollectiveRocker
Messages
137
Reaction score
0
I realize that when we normalize a solution to the Schrödinger equation, that we are setting it equal to 1, in order to maximize our chances of finding it. The question which I have is how do you normalize : lψl^2 = Axe^((-x^2)/2). The problem which I see is the e^(-x^2)/2). What would you fellas suggest as the best way to go about this?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Depending on your limits you can maybe use:

[tex]\int _0^\infty x e^{-ax^2}dx=\frac{1}{2a}[/tex]

Note that you can also use this if your integration limits are from minus infinity to infinity. Just multiply the above by two, because your function is symmetric. If you have other limits you can only approximate the integral.

btw; you're not normalizing a wavefunction to maximize your chances of finding it, but just to make sure you get a chance of 1 for finding it somewhere.

PS: here you can find some more integrals: http://www.sosmath.com/tables/integral/integ38/integ38.html
 
CollectiveRocker said:
The question which I have is how do you normalize : lψl^2 = Axe^((-x^2)/2).

u-substitution would work like butta'.

u=-x2/2
du=-xdx

etc
.
.
.
 
da_willem said:
Depending on your limits you can maybe use:

[tex]\int _0^\infty x e^{-ax^2}dx=\frac{1}{2a}[/tex]

Note that you can also use this if your integration limits are from minus infinity to infinity. Just multiply the above by two, because your function is symmetric. If you have other limits you can only approximate the integral.

btw; you're not normalizing a wavefunction to maximize your chances of finding it, but just to make sure you get a chance of 1 for finding it somewhere.

PS: here you can find some more integrals: http://www.sosmath.com/tables/integral/integ38/integ38.html

Actually, the function isn't symmetry, since x is an odd function while the argument of the exponential is an even function. So you end up with an odd function. So in this case, only the limits from 0 to infinity is the one that would give a non-zero value, since -inf to +inf will add up to zero.

Zz.
 
ZapperZ said:
Actually, the function isn't symmetry, since x is an odd function while the argument of the exponential is an even function. So you end up with an odd function. So in this case, only the limits from 0 to infinity is the one that would give a non-zero value, since -inf to +inf will add up to zero.

Zz.

Which makes me suspect that the given function, [itex]xe^{-x^2/2}=\psi (x)~not~ \psi ^2 (x)[/itex], or it may be [itex]\psi (r)[/itex]...

PS : Normalization is not about maximizing. It is simply ensuring existence.
 
Gokul43201 said:
Which makes me suspect that the given function, [itex]xe^{-x^2/2}=\psi (x)~not~ \psi ^2 (x)[/itex], or it may be [itex]\psi (r)[/itex]...

PS : Normalization is not about maximizing. It is simply ensuring existence.

Well, there's nothing wrong with that function being the wave function itself and not the the squared cousin. For example, this wavefunction can easily be a "trial" ground state wavefunction in spherical coordinates when we do the variational method. So here, x=r. Thus only the region for r = 0 to +infinity is physical. That's the region where it has to be normalized.

Zz.

Edit: Oh, I see what you mean. I reread the original posting and it does appear that the wavefunction itself had a sqrt(x) factor. I suppose there's really nothing wrong with that... it makes it consistent that the region of interest is only from 0 to +infinity, or else one would have an imaginary function in there...
 
Last edited:
ZapperZ said:
Actually, the function isn't symmetry, since x is an odd function while the argument of the exponential is an even function. So you end up with an odd function. So in this case, only the limits from 0 to infinity is the one that would give a non-zero value, since -inf to +inf will add up to zero.

Zz.

Ofcourse you are absolutely right.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
6K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 143 ·
5
Replies
143
Views
13K