Calculating Expectation Value of Kinetic Energy in 3D Bound State

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around calculating the expectation value of kinetic energy in a three-dimensional bound state, specifically using a spherically symmetric wavefunction. The original poster is attempting to derive the expression for the expectation value and is encountering difficulties with integration techniques and the application of the Laplacian in spherical coordinates.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the use of integration by parts and the expansion of the Laplacian in spherical coordinates. There are attempts to combine methods and clarify the treatment of the wavefunction's behavior at infinity.

Discussion Status

The discussion is active, with participants exploring various methods to approach the problem. Some have suggested combining techniques and clarifying assumptions about the wavefunction's behavior at infinity. There is an ongoing examination of the mathematical justification for certain terms vanishing in the context of bound states.

Contextual Notes

Participants are considering the implications of the wavefunction's falloff at infinity for normalizability and the convergence of integrals. There is a focus on ensuring that all aspects of the integrand are accounted for in the integration process.

latentcorpse
Messages
1,411
Reaction score
0
ok. this is an easy enough thing to prove in one dimension but my question seems to be 3 dimensional and it's causing me some hassle:

show the expectation value of the kinetic energy in a bound state described by the spherically symmetric wavefunction \psi_T(r) may be written

\langle \hat{T} \rangle = \frac{\hbar^2}{2m} \int \int \int \vline \frac{\partial \psi_T}{\partial r} \vline^2 d^3r

so far i have

\langle \hat{T} \rangle = -\frac{\hbar^2}{2m} \int_V \psi^* \nabla^2 \psi d^3r

usually one uses integration by parts here (at least in the 1D case) but that got me lost and so i tried expanding the laplacian in spherical polars but then the terms didn't cancel properly. any ideas?

thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Combine your two methods. First expand the Laplacian in spherical polars (use the fact the \psi is spherically symmetric), then integrate by parts

EDIT: Better yet, use the vector product rule \mathbf{\nabla}\cdot(f\textbf{A})=f(\mathbf{\nabla}\cdot\textbf{A})+\textbf{A}\cdot(\mathbf{\nabla}f)[/tex] to integrate by parts and avoid expanding the Laplacian altogether.
 
Last edited:
ok so i get (for the integral):

\int_V \psi^* \frac{1}{r^2} \frac{\partial}{\partial r} ( r^2 \frac{\partial \psi}{\partial r} ) d^3r

so do i set u=\frac{\psi^*}{r^2} , v=\frac{\partial}{\partial r} ( r^2 \frac{\partial \psi}{\partial r} )?
 
latentcorpse said:
ok so i get (for the integral):

\int_V \psi^* \frac{1}{r^2} \frac{\partial}{\partial r} ( r^2 \frac{\partial \psi}{\partial r} ) d^3r

so do i set u=\frac{\psi^*}{r^2} , v=\frac{\partial}{\partial r} ( r^2 \frac{\partial \psi}{\partial r} )?

Not quite. Remember, d^3r=r^2\sin\theta drd\theta d\phi, and \psi is spherically symmetric, so it depends only on r and you can replace the partial derivatives with ordinary ones.

You may also want to look at the edited version of my previous post to see an easier method.
 
ok. yeah this is pretty neat. I'm sure I've seen it before as well but I'm not sure how to justify one of the terms vanishing (obviously it's due to it being in a bound state but where do i say this)

for example, i have got to:

-\frac{\hbar^2}{2m} \int \int \int \left( \vec{\nabla} \cdot \left( \psi^* \vec{\nabla} \psi \right) - \left( \vec{\nabla} \psi \right) \cdot \left( \vec{\nabla} \psi^* \right) \right) d^3r

so the second term gives us what we want and we need to get rid of the first term.

presumably i do the integral first and THEN say it goes to zero. so it would be like:

\int_V \vec{\nabla} \cdot \left( \psi^* \vec{\nabla} \psi \right) dV = \int_S \left( \psi^* \vec{\nabla} \psi \right) \cdot \vec{n} dS
what do i say at this point to justify this going to zero?

thanks.
 
Well, the volume integral is over all space, so the surface integral is at infinity (Basically take your surface to be a thin spherical shell of radius r and then take the limit as r\to\infty) What must happen to the wavefunction as r\to\infty?
 
gabbagabbahey said:
Well, the volume integral is over all space, so the surface integral is at infinity (Basically take your surface to be a thin spherical shell of radius r and then take the limit as r\to\infty) What must happen to the wavefunction as r\to\infty?

ok well grad psi is parallel to the normal so will it not just be

4 \pi \psi^*(\infty) \vec{\nabla} \psi(\infty)=0 since \psi(\infty)=0
 
latentcorpse said:
ok well grad psi is parallel to the normal so will it not just be

4 \pi \psi^*(\infty) \vec{\nabla} \psi(\infty)=0 since \psi(\infty)=0

Does 4\pi have units of area?:wink:

The idea is that, for a bound state, \psi(r) (and hence also \psi^*) must fall off at least as fast as 1/r and so \mathbf{\nabla}\psi will fall off at least as fast as 1/r^2. When you take the limit as r\to\infty of the surface integral then, you find it will be zero (since it will fall off at least as fast as 1/r)
 
(i)how do we know \psi(r) falls of as 1/r?

(ii) what was wrong with what i did? i don't understand the problem since i just did the theta and phi integrals on their own since the integrad only depended on r.

(iii) so is there a way to write this down mathematically or would you just have got to the surface integral that i had and then used the "wordy" explanation that you had above?

thanks.
 
  • #10
latentcorpse said:
(i)how do we know \psi(r) falls of as 1/r?
It has to fall off at least as fast as 1/r otherwise the wavefunction isn't normalizable.
(ii) what was wrong with what i did? i don't understand the problem since i just did the theta and phi integrals on their own since the integrad only depended on r.
You looked at only part of the integrand. Besides the angular part, the dS contributes a factor of r2, so it's not enough just to say the part you wrote goes to zero as r goes to infinity because if it doesn't do it fast enough, the integral still won't converge.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
5K