Finding most probable position for given wave function

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on finding the most probable position of a particle given its wavefunction, ψ(x) = C e^{-x}(1-e^{-x}). The participants confirm that the most probable position is determined by setting the derivative of the probability density, P(x) = |ψ(x)|^2, to zero. After some initial confusion regarding the derivative, one participant successfully substitutes variables to solve the resulting quadratic equation, ultimately finding that x = ln(2) is the most probable position. There is also a debate about the validity of the wavefunction's form and its integrability, with some suggesting that the wavefunction may need to be defined over a specific interval. The conversation highlights the importance of careful manipulation of mathematical expressions in quantum mechanics.
Adoniram
Messages
93
Reaction score
6

Homework Statement


A particle has a given wavefunction:
##ψ(x) = C e^{-x}(1-e^{-x})##

(many steps in between)
...
Find the most probable position of the particle

Homework Equations


Most probable is where the probability density's derivative = 0. Right?
##P(x) = |ψ(x)|^{2}##

The Attempt at a Solution


I've solved for C, which 2√3.

Then I take the derivative of ##P(x)##, and set it to 0:
##-1-2e^{-2x}+3e^{-x}=0##

I've tried factoring this multiple ways and just can't seem to solve for x. I can do it in Mathematica no problem, but I could swear I've done this before and just can't remember the right tools.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
it is not possible to have the constant in the equation all the terms in the wave functions have the exponential, the probability density has all exponentials so will its derivative.
 
Um I'm not sure what you meant by all that. The constant C was solved (described in first post).

I figured it out though, and I'm surprised I forgot this:
Replace ##e^{x}## with ##y##, and ##e^{-x}## with ##1/y## etc, solve for y (it's a quadratic equation). Doing that, I found ##y=1,2##

Then, solving for ##x## gives me ##x=Ln(2),0##, but the only logical answer is ##x=Ln(2)## which agrees with what I found in Mathematica.
 
Are you sure you were copying the wavefunction correctly from the original problem? That form of wavefunction is not square integrable and consequently you shouldn't be able to find ##C##, possibilities might be that it's defined within certain space interval only or the ##x##'s are actually absolute valued.
 
I meant that if you calculate the probability density there can't be a term that is not multiplied by an exponential function hence your derivative can't have a constant all by itself. You have a -1 all by itself in your expression for the derivative.
 
The original function was 0 from -Infinity to 0. I was being lazy when I copied it.
 
You took the derivative wrong.
 
You can factor that expression multiple ways. I promise it's right (just verified with Mathematica)
 
You said there was more involved that you didn't write out.

##\psi(x)=Ce^{ −x} (1−e^{ −x} ) ##
Is always positive.
## P(x) = | \psi(x) | ^2 = \psi(x)^2##
##\frac{d}{dx} P(x) = \frac{d}{dx} \psi(x)^2 = 2 \psi(x) \frac{d}{dx} \psi(x) ##
##\psi(x)=Ce^{ −x} (1−e^{ −x} ) = C(e^{ −x} - e^{ −2x}) ##
What is ##\frac{d}{dx} \psi(x) ##?
Like the others have said, I don't see any way to get a -1 in the expansion for P'(x)
 
  • #10
I see, you canceled out the ##2C^2 e^{-2x} ## factor from the derivative to leave what you replaced with a quadratic. I also come up with ln(2).
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K