How Does the Expectation Value Simplify to iCm/(pi*hbar)^1/2?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the simplification of an expectation value to the form iCm/(pi*hbar)^(1/2). A participant expresses confusion over the derivation, particularly regarding the normalization of the wave function and the factors involved. It is noted that the initial factor should be (Cm)^(3/4) instead of Cm, which affects the final result. Another participant agrees, highlighting that the normalization factor was incorrectly stated as 1/4 instead of 1/2. The conclusion suggests that the provided solution contains errors that need correction.
Skullmonkee
Messages
22
Reaction score
0
Just a quick question.
I finished an expectation value sum and noticed that the given solution had me stumped.
Ive attached a quick picture of the simplifying process which was given as the solution.

The only thing i don't understand is how to get the value iCm/(pi*hbar)^1/2.
I don't know how it simplifies to that as i get another answer. You'll have to have a look at the attached picture to see what i mean.
Any help would be appreciated.
Thanks.
 

Attachments

  • Problem.jpg
    Problem.jpg
    15.8 KB · Views: 436
Physics news on Phys.org
The first factor underlined in red comes from the two factors of
\left( \frac{\sqrt{C m}}{\pi \hbar} \right)^{1/4}
on the top line, which are - IIRC - from the normalisation of your wave function.
The second factor in red comes from the -i\hbar in front of the d/dx, combined with the 2 \left( \sqrt{C m}/(2 \hbar) \right) which comes down from the exponential when you apply the d/dx.

In the third red underlined term, I suspect that instead of C m there should be (C m)^(3/4). Because if you let k = sqrt(C m) you have a sqrt(k) multiplied by k, which gives k^(3/2), i.e. ((C m)^(1/2))^(3/2) = (C m)^(3/4).
 
Thanks CompuChip

That was my thought exactly. I could not see how there was not a (C m)^(3/4) term. At least i was on the ball there. I suppose that the solution which was given (the working i showed in the pic) is just wrong then?
 
The mistake is at the beginning. The 1/4 should be 1/2 for correct normalization.
 
Thread 'Help with Time-Independent Perturbation Theory "Good" States Proof'
(Disclaimer: this is not a HW question. I am self-studying, and this felt like the type of question I've seen in this forum. If there is somewhere better for me to share this doubt, please let me know and I'll transfer it right away.) I am currently reviewing Chapter 7 of Introduction to QM by Griffiths. I have been stuck for an hour or so trying to understand the last paragraph of this proof (pls check the attached file). It claims that we can express Ψ_{γ}(0) as a linear combination of...
Thread 'Stacked blocks & pulley system'
I've posted my attempt at a solution but I haven't gone through the whole process of putting together equations 1 -4 yet as I wanted to clarify if I'm on the right path My doubt lies in the formulation of equation 4 - the force equation for the stacked block. Since we don't know the acceleration of the masses and we don't know if mass M is heavy enough to cause m2 to slide, do we leave F_{12x} undetermined and not equate this to \mu_{s} F_{N} ? Are all the equations considering all...
Back
Top