Calculate the RMSD for the odd solutions

  • Thread starter Thread starter ehrenfest
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on calculating the RMSD for the odd solutions of the infinite symmetric well problem, specifically using the wavefunction form u_n(x) = 1/√a * sin(nπx/a). Participants clarify the process of obtaining expectation values <x> and <x^2> through integration, emphasizing the importance of normalization and the correct integration limits. There is debate over the representation of wavefunctions, with some asserting that the provided wavefunction does not match standard forms for the well's boundaries. The conversation highlights the distinction between probability amplitudes and densities, and the need for proper normalization in quantum mechanics. Overall, the thread underscores the complexities of wavefunction representation and the calculation of expectation values in quantum systems.
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.
 
Back
Top