Calculate the RMSD for the odd solutions

  • Thread starter Thread starter ehrenfest
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around calculating the root mean square deviation (RMSD) for the odd solutions of the infinite symmetric well problem, specifically focusing on the wavefunctions and their normalization.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the form of the odd solutions and the process for calculating expectation values, including integrals involving the wavefunctions. Questions arise regarding the normalization of the wavefunctions and the appropriate limits of integration.

Discussion Status

There is an ongoing exploration of the definitions and properties of wavefunctions, with some participants providing clarifications about normalization and integration limits. Multiple interpretations of the wavefunctions are being examined, but no consensus has been reached regarding their correctness.

Contextual Notes

Participants note discrepancies in the wavefunction definitions and normalization, as well as the integration limits, which are under discussion. The original poster's approach to the problem is questioned, particularly regarding the treatment of the wavefunctions in the context of the infinite well.

ehrenfest
Messages
2,001
Reaction score
1
Calculate the RMSD for the odd solutions of the infinite symmetric well problem.

The odd solutions have the form:

u_n(x) = 1/\sqrt{a} \cdot sin(n \pi x/a)

So, I should multiply u_n by x, then take the integral over the bottom of the well to get <x>. Then I should multiply u_n by x^2, take the integral over the bottom of the well to get <x^2>. From this I can get delta x.

Is all that correct?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
How is the expectation value of an observable defined?
 
Gokul43201 said:
How is the expectation value of an observable defined?

I should take the integral over x times the modulus squared of u_n to get <x>. That better.
 
Better, but it doesn't look like your wavefunctions have been normalized.
 
Gokul43201 said:
Better, but it doesn't look like your wavefunctions have been normalized.
They have been. Remember this it represents a probability amplitude not a probability density and your region of integration should be -a to a.
 
ehrenfest said:
They have been. Remember this it represents a probability amplitude not a probability density and your region of integration should be -a to a.
In that case, the wavefunction looks wrong to me.
 
Its my book that does it oddly. Instead of breaking it up into cases of n = 0,2,4,.. and n =1,3,5,... they used different arguments for sine and cosine so that they can use n = 1,2,3,... for both cases.
 
I don't think that's particularly unusual.

If your well width is 2a I'd imagine your wavefunctions to be \sqrt{1/a}~cos(n \pi x/2a), and if the well goes from 0 to a then you'd have \phi_n(x) = \sqrt{2/a}~sin(n \pi x/a). The wavefunction you've written is neither of these.
 
Last edited:
Gokul43201 said:
I don't think that's particularly unusual. If your well width is 2a I'd imagine your wavefunctions to be \sqrt{1/a}~sin(n \pi x/2a), and if the well goes from 0 to a then you'd have \phi_n(x) = \sqrt{2/a}~sin(n \pi x/a). The wavefunction you've written is neither of these.
It goes from -a to a. The even solutions are of the form B*cos(k*x) , where k = sqrt(2mE/hbar^2). The boundary conditions give us that cosk(k*a) = 0, so set k_n*a = (n - 1/2)pi to get k_n = (n-1/2)pi/a. Plug that back into cosine and normalize.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
16
Views
3K
Replies
24
Views
3K
Replies
19
Views
3K