Determine if a wavefunction is sharp or fuzzy in energy

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around determining whether a given wavefunction for a particle in a one-dimensional infinite square well is sharp or fuzzy in energy. The wavefunction in question is a specific normalized state defined within the well, and the participants are exploring the implications of its form on energy measurements.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants are considering the nature of the wavefunction and whether it can be classified as an eigenstate of the Hamiltonian. There is discussion about the need to express the wavefunction as a linear combination of energy eigenfunctions to analyze its energy characteristics.

Discussion Status

Some participants have confirmed the normalization of the wavefunction. There is ongoing exploration of how to express the wavefunction in terms of the eigenfunctions of the system, with some guidance provided on the approach to take. Multiple interpretations regarding the classification of the wavefunction are being discussed.

Contextual Notes

Participants are navigating the requirements of the problem, including the need to analyze the wavefunction's form and its implications for energy measurements. There is uncertainty about the methods learned so far regarding linear combinations of eigenfunctions.

wood
Messages
23
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



For a particle of mass m in a one-dimensional infinite square well 0 < x < a, the normalised energy eigenfunctions ψn and eigenvalues En (integer n = 1, 2, 3, ...) are

$$ \psi_n(x) =\sqrt{\frac{2}{a}} sin \left( \frac{n \pi x}{a} \right) \;$$ inside the well otherwise Ψn(x)=0

Consider a state A with wave function ΨA(x,t) which at time t = 0 is given by
$$\Psi_A(x,0) = \frac {4}{\sqrt{5a}} sin^{3}\left( \frac{\pi x}{a} \right) for\; 0<x<a\; otherwise\; 0. $$

1. Is the state A sharp or fuzzy in energy?
2. Check that ΨA(x, 0) is normalised to one particle.
3. If you think A is sharp in energy, what energy does it have? Otherwise, what are the possible results of repeated energy measurements for the state A, and with what probability do they occur?
4. What is the formula for ΨA(x,t) for all times t?

Homework Equations

The Attempt at a Solution


The only part of this question I can confidently do is 2. I have checked this and it is normalised to one particle.

Going back to 1 I am pretty sure that the state A is fuzzy in energy. To check this I think I need ΨA(x, 0) to be an eigenfunction of the K energy operator. Without doing the second derivative I can be pretty sure that function is not coming back anytime soon and is therefore not an eignefunction...

If I am on the right path I think I then need to find <E>A for part 3.

I would really appreciate it is anyone can help point me in the right direction on this.

Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
wood said:
To check this I think I need ΨA(x, 0) to be an eigenfunction of the K energy operator.
Correct. If it has a definite energy, it will be an eigenstate of the Hamiltonian.

wood said:
If I am on the right path I think I then need to find <E>A for part 3.
No, you do not need to compute the expected energy and in fact it will tell you very little about the mix of eigenvalues. Instead, you should be writing the wave function as a linear combination of different eigenfunctions.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: wood
Thanks. I'm not sure how to write my wave function as a linear combination of eigenfunctions, not sure if we have seen that. Is there another way perhaps?

Ps nice quote in your sig.
 
wood said:
Thanks. I'm not sure how to write my wave function as a linear combination of eigenfunctions, not sure if we have seen that. Is there another way perhaps?

You have a function ##\sin^3(\pi x/a)##. You need to write it as a linear combination of the functions ##\sin(\pi n x/a)##. How would you go about doing this?

Edit: Of course, you will have to care about the constants too, but let us start here.
 
Are you saying I just separate the ^3 terms into three sin(nπx/a)
 
wood said:
Are you saying I just separate the ^3 terms into three sin(nπx/a)
Yes ... or whatever number of sin(nπx/a) would be the correct one ...
 
And that's where the constants come in?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
24
Views
3K
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K