Explanation from Part of Griffith's text (Differential Equation)

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around understanding a differential equation related to the harmonic oscillator as presented in Griffith's text. Participants are exploring methods for solving second-order ordinary differential equations (ODEs) without constant coefficients, particularly focusing on the analytic and algebraic approaches to the problem.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses uncertainty about solving a second-order ODE without constant coefficients and seeks help to understand the solution.
  • Another participant suggests using an "ansatz" to find an approximate solution, indicating that it can be checked for large values of the variable involved.
  • There is a mention that the ladder operator formalism may simplify the problem, potentially leading to a first-order equation that can be solved exactly.
  • One participant notes that Griffiths presents the algebraic method first in their edition, which contrasts with the order of methods discussed by others.
  • Another participant reflects on their experience with different texts, noting a common approach of starting with the analytic method before introducing ladder operators.
  • A participant suggests that the solution is likely to be a peaked waveform, such as a Gaussian, due to the nature of the harmonic oscillator as a potential well.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the order of methods presented in Griffith's text, and there are differing experiences regarding the approaches to solving the harmonic oscillator problem. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the best method to solve the differential equation in question.

Contextual Notes

Participants acknowledge the difficulty in providing definitive rules for approximating solutions to the differential equation, highlighting the dependence on intuitive understanding of the harmonic oscillator's characteristics.

tylerscott
Messages
28
Reaction score
0
This is from section 2.3 in Griffith's book on the harmonic oscillator, and apparently this differential equation should be obvious (to move on in my reading, I need to understand this first). I'm not quite sure how to solve a second order ODE without constant coefficients, so help to get to the given solution of the equation would be more than welcome.
Here is a grab of it:
ZhjKN.png
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Oftentimes, the best way to solve these sorts of equations is just by the time-honored technique of taking an informed guess (a procedure which you justify by giving it the official-sounding name of "ansatz" :smile:), and then checking whether it works. In this case, it's fairly straightforward to check that

[tex]\frac{d^2}{d\xi^2} (A e^{-\xi^2/2} + B e^{\xi^2/2}) = A(\xi^2-1)e^{-\xi^2/2} + B(\xi^2+1)e^{\xi^2/2}[/tex]

Which is an approximate solution to the equation as long as [itex]\xi[/itex] is large.

P.S. I wouldn't worry too much about this approximate solution for anything past a general characterization of the solutions. You're almost certainly going to turn around in the very next section and redo the whole problem using the ladder operator formalism, which allows you to convert the problem into a much simpler first-order equation that you can solve exactly.
 
Last edited:
Actually, Griffiths solves the harmonic oscillator using the algebraic method (ladder operators) first, before describing the analytic method that is being discussed here. Unless he's switched them around for the second edition; I have only the first edition at hand.
 
jtbell said:
Actually, Griffiths solves the harmonic oscillator using the algebraic method (ladder operators) first, before describing the analytic method that is being discussed here. Unless he's switched them around for the second edition; I have only the first edition at hand.

Yeah, you're correct. The ladder operator formalism makes more sense to me than the analytic method.
 
Ah, my bad. I've actually never read Griffiths (blasphemy, I know!) Most of the texts I've seen have started with the analytic method, slogged through it for a while, and then gone "man, that was hard. Hey, let's check out these nifty ladder operators instead--isn't that nicer?"

In any case, since you're only calculating an approximation here, it's difficult to provide any hard and fast rules about how to come up with solutions to the equation. Intuitively, though, you know that the harmonic oscillator is a potential well, so you know the solution is going to be some sort of peaked waveform. The simplest peaked waveform which still tends towards 0 at infinity (so that it's normalizable) is the Gaussian, so something with that form is a logical place to start. Then you just plug it in, and see if it works.
 
Ok, that makes sense. Thanks
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
5K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K