Answer to Sakurai 2.22 makes no sense

  • Thread starter Thread starter QFT25
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Sakurai
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on calculating the expectation value for a particle in a one-dimensional potential defined as (1/2)k*x^2 for x>0 and infinity for 0 PREREQUISITES

  • Quantum mechanics fundamentals
  • Understanding of wave functions and normalization
  • Expectation values in quantum mechanics
  • Familiarity with harmonic oscillator potentials
NEXT STEPS
  • Study wave function normalization techniques in quantum mechanics
  • Explore expectation values and their calculations in quantum systems
  • Review harmonic oscillator models in quantum mechanics
  • Investigate common errors in quantum mechanics solutions manuals
USEFUL FOR

Students of quantum mechanics, physics educators, and anyone involved in solving quantum systems and understanding wave function behavior.

QFT25
Messages
24
Reaction score
3

Homework Statement


Consider a particle of mass m subject to a one-dimensional potential of the following form:

(1/2)k*x^2 x>0

Infinity for 0<x

Find <x^2> for the ground state

Homework Equations



<x^2>= <Psi|x^2|Psi>

The Attempt at a Solution



I know the answer is 3*h/(4*m*w) but to me that makes no sense. That answer was derived using the first excited state of the ground state for the potential in which there is no infinite wall at x=0. That state is normalized for -Infinity to Infinity. But in our circumstance the motion can only be from 0 to Infinity. That means I need to re-normalize the wave function so that it it's norm is 1 from 0 to Infinity. When I do that and calculate the expectation value I get 3*h/(2*m*w). I don't understand how you can use a wave function which is not normalized from 0 to Infinity to calculate < x^2> from 0 to infinity
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Welcome to PF!

I think you are correct that the wavefunction should be renormalized and the answer for <x2> is (3ħ)/(2mω).
 
QFT25 said:
I know the answer is 3*h/(4*m*w) but to me that makes no sense.
Where did you get that answer?
 
DrClaude said:
Where did you get that answer?
The solutions manual. I think it has an error.
 
QFT25 said:
The solutions manual. I think it has an error.
I agree. The wave function has to be renormalized.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
2K