Finding a constant within a wavefuntion for a harmonic oscillator

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion revolves around finding the constant \(\alpha\) within the wavefunction \(\mu = C*x*exp(-\alpha x^2/2)\) for a harmonic oscillator. The standard Hamiltonian used is \(H = -\hbar/2m \frac{d^2}{dx^2} + \frac{1}{2} mw^2x^2\). The left-hand side of the Time-Independent Schrödinger Equation (TISE) is expressed as \(3\alpha\hbar^2/2m \mu + \mu x^2 [ \frac{mw^2}{2} - \frac{\hbar^2\alpha^2}{2m}]\). The second term is confirmed to equal zero because eigenvalues are constants and do not depend on the variable \(x\).

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of harmonic oscillators in quantum mechanics
  • Familiarity with the Time-Independent Schrödinger Equation (TISE)
  • Knowledge of eigenvalues and their properties
  • Basic proficiency in calculus, particularly differentiation
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation of the Time-Independent Schrödinger Equation
  • Learn about eigenvalues and eigenfunctions in quantum mechanics
  • Explore the properties of harmonic oscillators in quantum systems
  • Investigate the role of constants in wavefunctions and their implications
USEFUL FOR

Students of quantum mechanics, physicists working with harmonic oscillators, and anyone interested in the mathematical foundations of wavefunctions in quantum systems.

Chronos000
Messages
80
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



The question states for a harmonic oscillator the wavefunction is:

[tex]\mu[/tex] = C*x*exp(-[tex]\alpha[/tex]x2/2)

it then wants you to find [tex]\alpha[/tex].

using the standard hamiltonian:

H = -[tex]\hbar[/tex]/2m d2/dx2 + 1/2 mw2x2

I have differentiated [tex]\mu[/tex] twice and put it into the TISE.

for the left hand side of the TISE I have

3[tex]\alpha[/tex][tex]\hbar[/tex]2/2m [tex]\mu[/tex] + [tex]\mu[/tex]x2 [ mw2/2 - [tex]\hbar[/tex]2[tex]\alpha[/tex]2/2m]

I have been given a hint that the 2nd term goes equals zero but I'm not entirely sure why.
Could it be something to do with the eigenvalues having no dependence on x so this term must cancel?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I have been given a hint that the 2nd term goes equals zero but I'm not entirely sure why.
Could it be something to do with the eigenvalues having no dependence on x so this term must cancel?

Yes, that's exactly the reason. Eigenvalues are, by definition, always constants. Eigenvalues of observables are always real constants. They can never depend on x or any other variable.
 
thanks for confirming
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
7K
Replies
4
Views
3K