Determine the potential V(x) from the Hamiltonian

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on determining the potential V(x) from the Hamiltonian using the Time Independent Schrödinger Equation (TISE) with a given wavefunction psi = N/(1+x^2) and energy E=0. The user correctly applies the TISE, rearranging the equation to isolate V(x) and differentiating psi. Despite concerns regarding the presence of the Planck constant (h) and mass (m) in the potential, the consensus is that the method is sound, and the peculiarities of the problem suggest it is more mathematical than physical.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of the Time Independent Schrödinger Equation (TISE)
  • Familiarity with wavefunctions and normalization in quantum mechanics
  • Basic calculus, particularly differentiation
  • Knowledge of quantum mechanical concepts such as eigenstates and potentials
NEXT STEPS
  • Explore the implications of potential functions in quantum mechanics
  • Study the normalization of wavefunctions in different quantum systems
  • Learn about the physical interpretations of potentials in quantum mechanics
  • Investigate the role of dimensional analysis in quantum mechanics problems
USEFUL FOR

Students and researchers in quantum mechanics, particularly those dealing with the Schrödinger equation and potential energy functions, will benefit from this discussion.

Milsomonk
Messages
100
Reaction score
17

Homework Statement


Assuming psi is an eigenstate of the Hamiltonian (TISE) and that E=0, determine the potential V(x) appearing in the Hamiltonian.

Homework Equations


Time independent Schrödinger Equation - 1 Dimensional (x)

I am given the wavefunction psi = N/(1+x^2)
I have found the normalization coefficient N, but this cancels in the calculation.

The Attempt at a Solution


Hey guys,
So I have this question which I'm a little unsure on, so far I've taken these steps.
1. wrote down the TISE, since E=0 i set the right hand side to zero.
2. next I moved V(x) over to the left, canceled the minus sign on each side.
3. So now I have (Hbar^2/2m)*(second derivative of psi wrt x)= v(x) psi. I divided both sides by psi, carried out the defferentiation and simplified.
4. I have checked my calculus and simplifications in mathematica and they are correct. Basically for V(x) I have Hbar^2/m * (function of x), I am wondering if this is the write form for a potential and whether my method was sound. It seems odd to me to have the Planck constant and mass involved in the potential, but maybe its fine? Am I one the right lines with my technique for answering the question?

Any insights would be really appreciated :)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Milsomonk said:
Basically for V(x) I have Hbar^2/m * (function of x), I am wondering if this is the write form for a potential and whether my method was sound.
Of course we would need to see you answer in order to know if it is correct, but your method appears to be correct.
It seems odd to me to have the Planck constant and mass involved in the potential, but maybe its fine?
Often, the potential does not have Planck's constant, h, or the mass of the particle, m (e.g., the hydrogen atom or the harmonic oscillator). But in these cases, the wavefunction will contain h and m. For such systems, what would you expect to happen to h and m if you carried through your procedure to derive V from psi?
 
Your approach sounds correct.

This is a very weird problem, because the wave function and the resulting potential don't make sense from a units point of view, unless the x is is some adimensional length.
 
Thanks! awesome answers :) I feel a bit more confident in my answer now. I guess i'd expect them to cancel if h and m were contained in the wavefunction, leaving a potential purely dependent on x.

I'm happy to here that it is a weird problem, I thought that as well but didn't know if I was just missing something. I guess this particular problem is more of a mathematical excersise than a particularly physical one.

Thanks again guys :)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
1K
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
16
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K