Help derive this differential equation?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on deriving the differential equation $$\frac{d^2y}{dr^2} = r^2y$$ as presented in Griffiths' "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" (2nd edition, Section 2.3.2). The initial approach using the characteristic equation was incorrect due to the non-constant coefficients. The correct approximate solution for large $$r$$ is $$y = A e^{-\frac{r^2}{2}} + B e^{\frac{r^2}{2}}$$, which is derived through a more nuanced understanding of the harmonic oscillator. The participants emphasize the importance of correctly applying methods suitable for the type of differential equation at hand.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of differential equations, particularly second-order linear equations.
  • Familiarity with Griffiths' "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" and its context.
  • Knowledge of characteristic equations and their application.
  • Basic concepts of quantum mechanics, especially harmonic oscillators.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation of solutions for second-order linear differential equations with variable coefficients.
  • Learn about the method of Frobenius for solving differential equations.
  • Explore the concept of asymptotic solutions in quantum mechanics.
  • Review the application of separation of variables in different contexts of differential equations.
USEFUL FOR

Students and professionals in physics and mathematics, particularly those focusing on quantum mechanics and differential equations, will benefit from this discussion.

Boltzman Oscillation
Messages
233
Reaction score
26
Homework Statement
y'' = (r^2)y
Relevant Equations
characteristic equation
Hello I need to derive this equation from Grittfith's quantum book

$$ \frac{d^2y}{dr^2} = r^2y$$
I know I can use the characteristic equation:
$$m^2 = r^2 \rightarrow y = e^{r^2}$$
but the answer should be:
$$y=Ae^{\frac{-r^2}{2}} + Be^{\frac{r^2}{2}}$$
I know from Euler's formula that:
$$e^{ix} = cos(x)+isin(x)$$
but there is no imaginary number in y.
Can I absorb the imaginary constant into a constant B or A and then go from there?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Boltzmann Oscillation said:
I know I can use the characteristic equation
The characteristic equation applies for a linear differential equations with constant coefficients. That is not the case here. Your proposed solution also makes no sense as both terms are the same.
 
Orodruin said:
The characteristic equation applies for a linear differential equations with constant coefficients. That is not the case here. Your proposed solution also makes no sense as both terms are the same.

Alright, sorry. Could I use a solution via separable variables?
$$\frac{1}{y}dy^{2}=r^{2}dr^{2}$$
I can get from the first integration
$$\ln{y}dy=\frac{r^3}{3}dr$$
and integrating again i get
$$yln{y}-y+A=\frac{r^4}{12}$$
Am i going the right way?
 
Boltzmann Oscillation said:
Could I use a solution via separable variables?
No, that is not a correct application of separation of variables. You have a second derivative and cannot split that in that way.
 
Orodruin said:
No, that is not a correct application of separation of variables. You have a second derivative and cannot split that in that way.
Alright I am out of solutions :( could i get a hint?
 
Boltzmann Oscillation said:
Hello I need to derive this equation from Grittfith's quantum book
This is not a very specific reference. Please tell us exactly where in the book it appears.
 
Orodruin said:
This is not a very specific reference. Please tell us exactly where in the book it appears.
Introduction to Quantum Mechanics second edition
Section 2.3.2 Harmonic Oscillator Analytic Method
maybe I should mention r = sqrt(mwx2pi/h)?
 
So he is not saying that ##y = A e^{-r^2/2} + B e^{r^2/2}## is a solution. He is saying that it is an approximate solution for large ##r##. At least in the first edition (which is the one I have), he goes on to actually argue for the form of the solution.
 
Orodruin said:
So he is not saying that ##y = A e^{-r^2/2} + B e^{r^2/2}## is a solution. He is saying that it is an approximate solution for large ##r##. At least in the first edition (which is the one I have), he goes on to actually argue for the form of the solution.
ohh i see. How did he come up with that apporximate solution though?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
934
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K