Expectation value for a superposition

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around calculating the time-dependent expectation value of position for a wave function representing a particle in an infinite potential well. The wave function is a superposition of two eigenstates, and participants are exploring the implications of this superposition on the expectation value.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the expectation value being time-independent at a/2 and question whether this is reasonable for the given superposition. There is a focus on the time dependence of the wave function and the implications of it not being in a stationary state. Some participants evaluate integrals related to the expectation value and express confusion over the results.

Discussion Status

Participants are actively engaging with the problem, raising questions about the time dependence of the wave function and the correctness of their integration limits. There is a recognition of the need to consider the properties of the eigenstates involved, and some guidance is offered regarding the evaluation of integrals.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the wave function's time independence is only valid for stationary states and discuss the implications of integrating over the correct limits. There is mention of the behavior of integrals involving different eigenstates and how this affects the expectation value.

T-7
Messages
62
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



[tex] u(x) = \sqrt{\frac{8}{5}}\left(\frac{3}{4}u_{1}(x)-\frac{1}{4}u_{3}(x)\right)[/tex]

Determine the time-dependent expectation value of position of this wave function (the particle is in an infinite potential well between x = 0 and x = a).

The Attempt at a Solution



I make it a/2, ie. that the expectation value for this wave function is time-independent - we always expect it at the centre of the well. Does that seem reasonable for that superposition?

On integrating, I end up with three integrals, two of which amount to just the expectation values of the first and third eigenfunction times their respective probabilities (so I say [9/10]*[a/2] + [1/10]*[a/2], without bothering to unpack them) , and one integral which involves the product of u1 and u3 with x times a cosine component. This I evaluate as 0. Hence we have just a/2.

Does that seems stupid to anyone?

Cheers.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
T-7 said:
I make it a/2, ie. that the expectation value for this wave function is time-independent - we always expect it at the centre of the well. Does that seem reasonable for that superposition?

The wavefunction is supposed to represent the state of a physical system. Its time-dependence means the observable physical properties change with time. Wouldn't it be rather weird if you could change that by simply shifting your choice of axes?

The wavefunction is only time independent if it is in a stationary state. That is, an eigenstate of the Hamiltonian. (I guess that's what the u_i(x)'s stand for). Actually, a stationary state will pick up a time dependent phase-factor exp(-iwt), where the angular frequenty depends on the energy of the eigenstate.
When you have a linear combination of eigenstates, each with different energy, each term will pick up a different phase factor and it's not a stationary state anymore.

So what is the time dependence of u(x)?
 
Galileo said:
The wavefunction is supposed to represent the state of a physical system. Its time-dependence means the observable physical properties change with time. Wouldn't it be rather weird if you could change that by simply shifting your choice of axes?

The wavefunction is only time independent if it is in a stationary state. That is, an eigenstate of the Hamiltonian. (I guess that's what the u_i(x)'s stand for). Actually, a stationary state will pick up a time dependent phase-factor exp(-iwt), where the angular frequenty depends on the energy of the eigenstate.
When you have a linear combination of eigenstates, each with different energy, each term will pick up a different phase factor and it's not a stationary state anymore.

So what is the time dependence of u(x)?

I expected time-dependence too for a superposition. But I still seem to be evaluating the relevant integral as zero:

<x> = (a/10).(a/2) + (1/10).(a/2) - (3/10).2cos[tex]\left(\frac{E_{3}-E_{1}}{\hbar}.t\right)\int^{+\infty}_{-\infty}u1.x.u3.x dx[/tex]
 
T-7 said:
I expected time-dependence too for a superposition. But I still seem to be evaluating the relevant integral as zero:

<x> = (a/10).(a/2) + (1/10).(a/2) - (3/10).2cos[tex]\left(\frac{E_{3}-E_{1}}{\hbar}.t\right)\int^{+\infty}_{-\infty}u1.x.u3.x dx[/tex]

Did you integrate from minus infinity to plus infinity or from 0 to a? You need to do it from 0 to a!
 
nrqed said:
Did you integrate from minus infinity to plus infinity or from 0 to a? You need to do it from 0 to a!

Nope. From 0 to a. Tried it with Maple too.

The integral of sin(Pi*x/a) * x * (sin3*Pi*x/a) from 0 to a is zero.

int(sin(Pi*x/a)*x*sin(3*Pi*x/a),x=0..a);
ans: 0

If it was eigenfunction 1 with eigenfunction 4, say, it would be a different matter.

int(sin(Pi*x/a)*x*sin(4*Pi*x/a),x=0..a);
ans: (16a^2)/(-225*Pi^2)

Thinking about it, simply superimposing 1 and 3 does not create a net 'bulge' on either side of a/2 as it does with 1 and 2, say. Try drawing it.

The oscillating component seems to vanish because it is multiplying a zero integral.
 
Last edited:
Well, it looks good then.
 
T-7 said:
Nope. From 0 to a. Tried it with Maple too.

The integral of sin(Pi*x/a) * x * (sin3*Pi*x/a) from 0 to a is zero.

int(sin(Pi*x/a)*x*sin(3*Pi*x/a),x=0..a);
ans: 0

If it was eigenfunction 1 with eigenfunction 4, say, it would be a different matter.

int(sin(Pi*x/a)*x*sin(4*Pi*x/a),x=0..a);
ans: (16a^2)/(-225*Pi^2)

Thinking about it, simply superimposing 1 and 3 does not create a net 'bulge' on either side of a/2 as it does with 1 and 2, say. Try drawing it.

The oscillating component seems to vanish because it is multiplying a zero integral.


Oh, I did not notice it was u1 and u3! Of course it's zero (for some reason I thought it was u1 and u2). It's clear that it's zero since it's odd with respect to the center of the well, as you say. <x> is zero whenever the complete wave is a sum of two wavefunctions with index differing by an even number.
 

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K