Expressions for \gamma and \theta in terms of \alpha and \beta?

Slepton
Messages
20
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



For a free particle, i have two expressions.

\varphi(x) = \alphaeikx + \betae-ikx
and


\varphi(x) = \gammasin(kx) + \thetacos(kx)

I have to determine expressions for \gamma and \theta in terms of \alpha and \beta.


Homework Equations



sin(kx) = (eikx - e-ikx)/2i

cos(kx) = (eix + e-ix)/2


The Attempt at a Solution



I replaced sin and cosine in the second equation.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Slepton said:

The Attempt at a Solution



I replaced sin and cosine in the second equation.

That's a good start...what did you end up with?
 
replacing
alpha with A
beta with B
gamma with M
theta with N

I have,

2(Aeikx + Be-ikx) = -Meikx + Me-ikx + Neix + Ne-ix
 
Slepton said:
replacing
alpha with A
beta with B
gamma with M
theta with N

I have,

2(Aeikx + Be-ikx) = -Meikx + Me-ikx + Neix + Ne-ix

Good, now just group like terms together:

2(\alpha e^{ikx}+\beta e^{-ikx})=(\theta-\gamma)e^{ikx}+(\gamma+\theta)e^{-ikx}

Surely you can see where to go from here?
 
actually that's where I'm stuck at. I know its should be something simpler but my system has lasted on me...
 
Surely you can see that 2\alpha=\theta-\gamma and 2\beta=\theta+\gamma...can't you?
 
Thread 'Need help understanding this figure on energy levels'
This figure is from "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" by Griffiths (3rd edition). It is available to download. It is from page 142. I am hoping the usual people on this site will give me a hand understanding what is going on in the figure. After the equation (4.50) it says "It is customary to introduce the principal quantum number, ##n##, which simply orders the allowed energies, starting with 1 for the ground state. (see the figure)" I still don't understand the figure :( Here is...
Thread 'Understanding how to "tack on" the time wiggle factor'
The last problem I posted on QM made it into advanced homework help, that is why I am putting it here. I am sorry for any hassle imposed on the moderators by myself. Part (a) is quite easy. We get $$\sigma_1 = 2\lambda, \mathbf{v}_1 = \begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ 0 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_2 = \lambda, \mathbf{v}_2 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_3 = -\lambda, \mathbf{v}_3 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ -1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} $$ There are two ways...
Back
Top