Griffiths Quantum Mechanics 2nd edition Chapter 8 equation is confusing

AI Thread Summary
In Griffiths' Quantum Mechanics 2nd edition, Chapter 8, a discussion arises regarding the calculation of an integral on page 323, where a participant disagrees with the result and believes it should yield a different outcome. The integral's behavior as r2 approaches r1 is highlighted, noting that the original result does not satisfy this condition. Additionally, there is confusion over the transition from equation 8.24 to 8.25, specifically regarding the assumption that sin(ε) ≈ ε and its implications for sin^(-1)(ε). Clarification is provided by suggesting the use of the inverse sine function or a Taylor series expansion to understand the approximation better. The participant expresses gratitude for the explanation, indicating a resolution to their confusion.
edfink1
Messages
3
Reaction score
5
Homework Statement
Griffiths Quantum Mechanics 2nd edition
Relevant Equations
Griffiths second edition equations 8.24 and 8.25
In Griffiths Quantum Mechanics 2nd edition, in Chapter 8 he calculates the following integral on page 323
Screen Shot 2020-10-10 at 7.52.17 PM.png

and he gets
Screen Shot 2020-10-10 at 7.57.06 PM.png

I disagree with this result, I think the integral should be
Screen Shot 2020-10-10 at 7.55.18 PM.png

since

Screen Shot 2020-10-10 at 8.17.16 PM.png

Maybe somebody can explain why I am wrong? Also, from equation 8.24 to 8.25, he makes the assumption that sinϵ ≅ ϵ, but how does that imply sin^(-1)ϵ ≅ ϵ, which seems to be what he assumes to get from 8.24 to 8.25. Any insight is greatly appreciated!
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2020-10-10 at 3.19.14 PM.png
    Screen Shot 2020-10-10 at 3.19.14 PM.png
    6.1 KB · Views: 179
  • Screen Shot 2020-10-10 at 7.55.18 PM.png
    Screen Shot 2020-10-10 at 7.55.18 PM.png
    2.7 KB · Views: 183
  • Like
Likes Delta2
Physics news on Phys.org
edfink1 said:
I disagree with this result, I think the integral should be
View attachment 270765
Note that the integral must go to zero as ##r_2## approaches ##r_1##. But your result doesn't satisfy this condition.

Check the following:
1602385130516.png
Also, from equation 8.24 to 8.25, he makes the assumption that sinϵ ≅ ϵ, but how does that imply sin^(-1)ϵ ≅ ϵ, which seems to be what he assumes to get from 8.24 to 8.25. Any insight is greatly appreciated!
Take the inverse sine of both sides of sinϵ ≅ ϵ. Or, do a Taylor series of ##\sin^{-1} x## about ##x=0## .
 
  • Like
Likes Delta2
Thank you, I get it now!
 
  • Like
Likes berkeman, Delta2 and TSny
Thread 'Help with Time-Independent Perturbation Theory "Good" States Proof'
(Disclaimer: this is not a HW question. I am self-studying, and this felt like the type of question I've seen in this forum. If there is somewhere better for me to share this doubt, please let me know and I'll transfer it right away.) I am currently reviewing Chapter 7 of Introduction to QM by Griffiths. I have been stuck for an hour or so trying to understand the last paragraph of this proof (pls check the attached file). It claims that we can express Ψ_{γ}(0) as a linear combination of...
Back
Top