Deriving the solution for a free particle from the TISE

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on deriving the solution for a free particle using the time-independent Schrödinger equation (TISE) with a potential of zero. The participant attempts to connect their derived solution, which involves cosine and sine functions, to the standard form of the wave function expressed in terms of complex exponentials. They explore the relationship between the constants A and B and their potential to be complex, which would allow for equivalence between the two solution formats. The conversation emphasizes the importance of recognizing that allowing complex coefficients resolves the discrepancies in the derived expressions. Ultimately, the key takeaway is that the assumption of real coefficients limited the understanding of the equivalence between the two forms of the wave function.
CAF123
Gold Member
Messages
2,918
Reaction score
87

Homework Statement


In my physics course, we have been given 'plausibility' arguments for the solutions of the time dependent/time independent SE. However, have done a Calculus course alongside, I feel I should really derive these solutions, since I have learned about the techniques of second order diff eqns.

The Attempt at a Solution


Considering the simple case first: ##V = 0##. In such a region, the TISE reduces to $$\frac{-\hbar^2}{2m} \frac{d^2}{dx^2} \psi(x) - E\psi(x) = 0.$$ Take the auxiliary eqn of this to get ##-\frac{\hbar^2}{2m}r^2 - E = 0 => r = ±\frac{\sqrt{2mE}}{\hbar}i## and so the general solution is $$\psi(x) = A\cos(\frac{\sqrt{2mE}}{\hbar}) + B\sin(\frac{\sqrt{2mE}}{\hbar})$$
First question:I recognise my expression for ##r## as the expression for ##k##, the wavenumber. Can I simply let ##r = k## to recover this expression? If so, why?
Second question:I know the general soln in this case is ##\psi(x) = Ae^{ikx} + Be^{-ikx}. ##How does this follow from what I have? I thought about using the method of reduction of order to perhaps find this other term but then I noticed that the expression that I got did not have a term ##i\sin##, so what I have does not conform with the answer anyway.
Many thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You can set r=k on dimensionality arguments.
Use Euler's formula linking sin/cos and the complex exponential.
 
dextercioby said:
You can set r=k on dimensionality arguments.
Use Euler's formula linking sin/cos and the complex exponential.

Are you talking about $$e^{ikx} = \cos(kx) + i\sin(kx)?$$
In my case, I have ##Ae^{ikx} + Be^{-ikx} = A[\cos(kx) + i\sin(kx)] + B[\cos(kx) -i\sin(kx)] = \cos(kx)[A+B] +i\sin(kx)[A-B]##. In my expression I have no i. The only thing I can see of doing is saying ##A+B = ##some constant, ##C## and ##(A-B)i = ##some constant, ##D##, right?
 
CAF123 said:
In my expression I have no i.
What if you allow that A and B could be complex? Aren't the two solution formats then equivalent?
 
haruspex said:
What if you allow that A and B could be complex? Aren't the two solution formats then equivalent?

Is that not what I tried? Instead of A and B, I used C and D, so that in the end I get $$\psi(x) = C\cos(\frac{\sqrt{2mE}}{\hbar}) + D\sin(\frac{\sqrt{2mE}}{\hbar}) = (A+B)\cos(\frac{\sqrt{2mE}}{\hbar}) + (A-B)i\sin(\frac{\sqrt{2mE}}{\hbar})$$ Simplifying gives ##\psi(x) = Ae^{ikx} + Be^{-ikx}##.
 
CAF123 said:
Is that not what I tried?
OK. It wasn't clear to me that you had come to understand that the source of your difficulty was the assumption that A and B were real.
 
TL;DR Summary: I came across this question from a Sri Lankan A-level textbook. Question - An ice cube with a length of 10 cm is immersed in water at 0 °C. An observer observes the ice cube from the water, and it seems to be 7.75 cm long. If the refractive index of water is 4/3, find the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. I could not understand how the apparent height of the ice cube in the water depends on the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. Does anyone have an...
Kindly see the attached pdf. My attempt to solve it, is in it. I'm wondering if my solution is right. My idea is this: At any point of time, the ball may be assumed to be at an incline which is at an angle of θ(kindly see both the pics in the pdf file). The value of θ will continuously change and so will the value of friction. I'm not able to figure out, why my solution is wrong, if it is wrong .
Back
Top