Does e^{-ix} Have a Limit as x Approaches Infinity?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter jimmycricket
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Limit
Join the discussion
Registration is free. Ask a follow-up in this thread, or start your own.
8 replies · 14K views
jimmycricket
Messages
115
Reaction score
2
What is the limit of [itex]e^{-ix}[/itex] as x tends to infinity?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
jimmycricket said:
What is the limit of [itex]e^{-ix}[/itex] as x tends to infinity?
What does ##e^{-ix}## represent? IOW, for a given x value, what does ##e^{-ix}## evaluate to?
 
[itex]cos(x) - isin(x)[/itex]
 
Well this is exactly my problem, I don't know. Perhaps I should have mentioned that I have considered the limit in terms of cos and sin and I'm not just asking you out of laziness. I would be inclined to say the limit does not exist. The reason I need to know is I am answering a question on square well potentials where solving schrodingers equation yields [itex]\psi(x)=Ae^{ikx} +Be^{-ikx}[/itex] outside of the well which in the region to the leftof the well simplifies to [itex]Ae^{ikx}[/itex] and I was wondering if this is because the wave function equals zero as x tends to minus infinity which implies B=0. I don't know if this is now the right place to ask this but if anyone can help that would be great.
 
I can't comment on the physics question. However the original math question is answerable - there is no limit. You can envision it geometrically as being points on the unit circle in the complex plane. As x becomes infinite the point simply goes around the circle indefinitely.
 
jimmycricket said:
Well this is exactly my problem, I don't know. Perhaps I should have mentioned that I have considered the limit in terms of cos and sin and I'm not just asking you out of laziness. I would be inclined to say the limit does not exist. The reason I need to know is I am answering a question on square well potentials where solving schrodingers equation yields [itex]\psi(x)=Ae^{ikx} +Be^{-ikx}[/itex] outside of the well which in the region to the leftof the well simplifies to [itex]Ae^{ikx}[/itex] and I was wondering if this is because the wave function equals zero as x tends to minus infinity which implies B=0. I don't know if this is now the right place to ask this but if anyone can help that would be great.

Do you know what it means when we say that a function, f(x), has a limit as x → ∞? Never mind the "epsilon-delta" stuff; just give an intuitive description.

Alternatively, think of the graph y = cos(x). Do the y-values settle down to a fixed value as x becomes larger and larger?
 
jimmycricket said:
Well this is exactly my problem, I don't know. Perhaps I should have mentioned that I have considered the limit in terms of cos and sin and I'm not just asking you out of laziness. I would be inclined to say the limit does not exist. The reason I need to know is I am answering a question on square well potentials where solving schrodingers equation yields [itex]\psi(x)=Ae^{ikx} +Be^{-ikx}[/itex] outside of the well which in the region to the leftof the well simplifies to [itex]Ae^{ikx}[/itex] and I was wondering if this is because the wave function equals zero as x tends to minus infinity which implies B=0. I don't know if this is now the right place to ask this but if anyone can help that would be great.

A (infinite) square well potential should not have waves outside of the well. Outside the well, the wave function should just be 0. A finite square well can have a non 0 wave function outside the well, but they should exponentially decay instead of oscillate (assuming a bound state). Recheck your answers.

If you are dealing with scattering states, then the wave function must be a wave-packet, not a plane wave since plane waves are not normalizable.
 
Mark44 said:
What does ##e^{-ix}## represent? IOW, for a given x value, what does ##e^{-ix}## evaluate to?

jimmycricket said:
[itex]cos(x) - isin(x)[/itex]
No, I was looking for a more specific answer, which @mathman gave you in post #6. In my question I specified "for a specific x value," so your response should have taken that into account.