Calculating expansion coefficients for particle in 1-D box

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on calculating expansion coefficients for a particle in a one-dimensional box, specifically for the case of n=1. The user queries the integration limits used in the calculation of expansion coefficients, noting a discrepancy between the limits from 0 to a and those from -∞ to ∞ as presented in MIT lecture notes. It is clarified that for the specific case of a particle confined within the box, the integration limits do not need to change, although in more general scenarios, such as infinite systems or when considering multiple eigenstates, extending the limits may be necessary to capture all contributions accurately.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of quantum mechanics principles, particularly wavefunctions and eigenstates.
  • Familiarity with the concept of orthonormality in quantum states.
  • Knowledge of integration techniques in the context of physics problems.
  • Basic grasp of superposition principles in quantum systems.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation of expansion coefficients in quantum mechanics using the formalism of superposition.
  • Learn about the implications of orthonormality in quantum state calculations.
  • Explore the concept of infinite potential wells and their wavefunctions.
  • Investigate the necessity of changing integration limits in various quantum mechanical scenarios.
USEFUL FOR

Students studying quantum mechanics, particularly those preparing for exams or needing clarification on wavefunction calculations and expansion coefficients in confined systems.

moduli1150
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
While reviewing for my midterm I came across an old problem that asked me to find the expansion coefficient for n=1 given an expression for the superposition wavefunction. I also know the expressions for the individual eigenstates because it is simply considering a particle in a 1-D box. I am asking regarding a possible misconception I have about how to go about solving this.

Assume that the length of the one-dimensional box is a; let \Psi(x) be my superposition wavefunction, \phi_n(x) my individual eigenstates, and c_n my expansion coefficients. Then I have
\int_0^a \phi_m^\star \Psi(x) \mathrm{d}x = \int_0^a \phi_m^\star \sum_{n=0}^\infty c_n\phi_n \mathrm{d}x
which trivially equals c_m because the eigenstates are orthonormal, etc. However, I took a look at page 2 of
http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/8-04-quantum-physics-i-spring-2006/lecture-notes/lecture11.pdf
and the integration limits are from -\infty to \infty. What am I missing here? I don't understand why the integration limits would be like that instead of from 0 to a, because that is the only range for which the wavefunction and eigenstates are physically relevant (since the particle is confined to this range). I would appreciate it if someone could clear up this point of confusion for me.

The MIT lecture notes do change the limits of integration after the superposition wavefunction is explicitly written out as a summation of the eigenstates, which I don't particularly understand; since the two expressions are equivalent, I don't see why the limits of integration would have to be modified at all.

(I hope I'm not missing something fundamental here.)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
In this particular case, the limits of integration do not need to be changed. However, when considering more general systems or equations, it may be necessary to extend the limits of integration in order to obtain an accurate solution. For example, if you are trying to solve for the wavefunction of a particle in a box that is infinite in one direction, then it would be necessary to extend the limits of integration from 0 to \infty. In addition, if you are considering a wavefunction that is composed of a linear combination of eigenstates with different energy levels, then the integration limits may need to be extended so that all of the contributions from each eigenstate can be taken into account.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
4K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
13
Views
3K
Replies
22
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K