How Does Griffith Prove Psi Stays Normalized in Equation [1.25]?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter nymphidius
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Normalization Section
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around David Griffith's proof in equation [1.25] regarding the normalization of the wave function psi (ψ) in quantum mechanics. Participants are exploring the mathematical steps and substitutions involved in the derivation, particularly focusing on the application of the product rule and the manipulation of derivatives.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Homework-related

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses confusion about the transition from equation [1.21] to [1.25] and seeks clarification on the substitution made in the proof of normalization.
  • Another participant suggests equating the time derivative of the wave function to the Hamiltonian operator and applying it to |Ψ|² while emphasizing the importance of the product rule.
  • A later reply indicates that the participant has resolved their confusion after receiving help.
  • Another participant questions how Griffith factored out the partial derivative in the equation, expressing concern about the correctness of the manipulation.
  • One participant advises to recheck the differentiation process, particularly the negative signs and the application of the product rule, suggesting that the two sides of the equation are indeed equal.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the specific steps in Griffith's proof, as there are differing interpretations of the manipulation of derivatives and the application of the product rule.

Contextual Notes

Some participants note potential confusion arising from the handling of negative signs and the product rule, indicating that these aspects may require further clarification.

nymphidius
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
I'm having trouble understanding what David Griffith did in equation [1.25]. In this section he's trying to prove that psi stays normalized and I'm following him from [1.21] to [1.25] and where I'm getting stuck is understanding how:

∂/∂t|ψ|^2= i\hbar/2m(ψ*∂²/∂x²[ψ]-∂²/∂x²[ψ*]ψ) [1.25]

He makes this equal to yet another confusing equation, but I think if just understood what substitution he made then I'd be able to progress. (This is independent study so I have no university professor to ask).

Also, I'm assuming someone has the book to look at what the confusion is. If someone wants to help but doesn't have the book, I'm willing to write out steps 1.21 to 1.25.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Consider these things equal for the time being
<br /> i\hbar \frac{\partial}{\partial t}=\hat{H}=-\frac{\hbar^2}{2m}\nabla^2<br />
Then apply this to |\Psi |^2 and don't forget the product rule.
 
Last edited:
Thanks a million man. I understand it now.
 
okay so I get that part, but in the same line (within 1.25) he writes:

iℏ/2m(ψ*∂²/∂x²[ψ]-∂²/∂x²[ψ*]ψ) = iℏ/2m(∂/∂x)(ψ*∂/∂x[ψ]-∂/∂x[ψ*]ψ) [1.25]

how did he factor out the partial derivative with respect to x on the RHS? To my knowledge, if you apply the partial derivative on the RHS then I WOULDN'T get the LHS of 1.25.

(to my understanding ψ=ψ(x,t))
 
try it out again. Watch the negative signs, and make sure to do the product rule when you differentiate, they are equal.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
6K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
7K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K