How Do You Calculate RMS Displacement for an Oscillating H2 Molecule?

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The problem involves calculating the root mean square (RMS) displacement for an oscillating H2 molecule, utilizing both classical and quantum mechanical principles. The original poster presents a series of equations related to the energy of the molecule and the wave function, aiming to derive the expectation value of displacement.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to derive the expectation value of displacement using the provided wave function and integral equations. Some participants question the normalization constant and suggest re-evaluating the algebra involved in the calculations. Others discuss the relevance of the initial energy equation and the potential for alternative methods to solve the problem without direct integration.

Discussion Status

Participants are actively engaging with the original poster's approach, providing feedback on the normalization of the wave function and the algebraic steps taken. There is a recognition of the complexity of the integrals involved, and some participants suggest alternative methods that could simplify the process. No explicit consensus has been reached regarding the correctness of the calculations, but guidance has been offered on key aspects of the approach.

Contextual Notes

There are indications that the original poster is uncertain about the normalization constant and the relevance of certain equations. The discussion also highlights the potential for different methods to approach the problem, suggesting a variety of interpretations and techniques within the context of quantum mechanics.

sam400
Messages
17
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


The question is as stated:
"The ##H_2## molecule has oscillatory excitations. In classical physics the energy can be approximated to \begin{equation} E = \frac{p^2}{2m} + \frac{m \omega^2 x^2}{2} \end{equation}where m is the reduced mass. Quantum mechanics can be applied to this equation. Using as a starting point \begin{equation} \Psi \propto e^{\frac{-m \omega x^2 }{2 \hbar}} e^{- i E_{o} \frac{t}{ \hbar}} \end{equation}, show how to find ##<x^2>## for this state, from this formula and measured frequency 132 THz, calculate the rms displacement.

Homework Equations


Aside from the given ones, probably just the one for expectation value equation for ##<x^2>## :
\begin{equation}
<x^2> = \int_{- \infty}^{\infty} \Psi^{*}(x,t) x^2 \Psi(x,t) dx
\end{equation}

I guess the rms value is the the square root of that expectation value.

The Attempt at a Solution


So for ##\Psi##, I just made the equation given equal to a constant and the proportional part, and made that the wave equation:
\begin{equation} \Psi (x,t) = k e^{\frac{-m \omega x^2}{2 \hbar}} e^{- i E_{o} \frac{t}{ \hbar}} \end{equation}

Its complex conjugate:
\begin{equation} \Psi (x,t) = k e^{\frac{-m \omega x^2}{2 \hbar}} e^{ i E_{o} \frac{t}{ \hbar}} \end{equation}

Then, I sat up the integral:

\begin{equation}
<x^2> = k^2 \int_{- \infty}^{\infty} e^{\frac{-m \omega x^2}{2 \hbar}} e^{ i E_{o} \frac{t}{ \hbar}} x^2 e^{\frac{-m \omega x^2 }{2 \hbar}} e^{- i E_{o} \frac{t}{ \hbar}} dx
\end{equation}

The complex parts just cancel out and become 1, and the real parts can be combined, so the integral simplifies to:
\begin{equation}
<x^2> = k^2 \int_{- \infty}^{\infty} x^2 e^{\frac{-m \omega x^2 }{ \hbar}} dx \end{equation}

I wasn't sure if what I did was right, since this is a non-trivial integral, but some other examples also had them, so I kept on going. According to a source:
\begin{equation} \int_{- \infty}^{\infty} x^2 e^{-ax^2} = \frac{ \sqrt{\pi}}{2 a^{\frac{3}{2}}}
\end{equation}

Using that, I just substituted ##a## for ##\frac{m \omega}{\hbar}##, and got:
\begin{equation}
<x^2> = k^2 \frac{ \sqrt{\pi}}{2 \frac{m \omega}{\hbar}^{\frac{3}{2}}}
\end{equation}

After this, I guess I will have to find the value of the constant, for that, I just set up a regular expectation value:
\begin{equation} <x^2> = k^2 \int_{- \infty}^{\infty} e^{\frac{-m \omega x^2 }{ \hbar}} dx \end{equation}

After looking up the value of the general integral, which is ##\sqrt{\frac{\pi}{a}}## where ##a = \frac{m \omega}{\hbar}##, I get:
\begin{equation} k^2 = \sqrt{\frac{2 m \omega}{h}} \end{equation}

After some plugging in and simplifications, I get the answer:
\begin{equation}
<x^2> = \frac{\hbar}{\sqrt{2} m \omega}
\end{equation}

What I wanted to know is if my process and the formulae I used were correct. I am still somewhat rusty on expectation values so I actually wasn't sure on whether my whole process is the correct approach. I am also not exactly sure on how to get the rms displacement, do I really just square the expectation value or is there more to the calculation than that? I'm also not sure if the first equation given in the question has any relevance in the calculations. Thanks in advance.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I'd say to recheck your k (constant value), since it only requires a normalisation i.e.

\int_{-infinity}^{+infinity}\Psi ^{*}\Psi dx = 1

seems correct other than that.
 
sam400 said:
I guess the rms value is the the square root of that expectation value.
Correct.

sam400 said:
I wasn't sure if what I did was right, since this is a non-trivial integral, but some other examples also had them, so I kept on going.
Gaussian integrals are everywhere, better get used to them!

sam400 said:
After looking up the value of the general integral, which is ##\sqrt{\frac{\pi}{a}}## where ##a = \frac{m \omega}{\hbar}##, I get:
\begin{equation} k^2 = \sqrt{\frac{2 m \omega}{h}} \end{equation}
I strongly suggest you keep it in terms of ##\hbar##, it will help below.

sam400 said:
After some plugging in and simplifications, I get the answer:
\begin{equation}
<x^2> = \frac{\hbar}{\sqrt{2} m \omega}
\end{equation}
You have a slight error here. Redo the algebra (see my suggestion above).

sam400 said:
What I wanted to know is if my process and the formulae I used were correct. I am still somewhat rusty on expectation values so I actually wasn't sure on whether my whole process is the correct approach.
Everything is fine, although I think is often better to start by normalizing the wave function. (Maybe it is just a question of taste.)

sam400 said:
I am also not exactly sure on how to get the rms displacement, do I really just square the expectation value or is there more to the calculation than that?
I guess you mean to take the square root. The root-mean-square of any observale is defined as ##\sqrt{\langle \hat{A}^2 \rangle}##.

sam400 said:
I'm also not sure if the first equation given in the question has any relevance in the calculations.
I guess it is mostly to provide context.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: sam400
rwooduk said:
I'd say to recheck your k (constant value), since it only requires a normalisation i.e.

\int_{-infinity}^{+infinity}\Psi ^{*}\Psi dx = 1

seems correct other than that.
The ##k## value he gets is correct.
 
DrClaude said:
You have a slight error here. Redo the algebra (see my suggestion above).

Would my error just be that the denominator has a 2 and not its square root? I realized I didn't notice that the 2 in the original expression was not under a square root.
 
sam400 said:
Would my error just be that the denominator has a 2 and not its square root? I realized I didn't notice that the 2 in the original expression was not under a square root.
Yes, the only problem was the superfluous square root.
 
This problem can also be solved without actually computing the integral or normalizing the wave function (i.e., finding k). I can think of two different paths, one involving annihilation and creation operators (which the OP may or may not be familiar with) and another using partial integration.
 

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
2K