I cannot normalise this: F= Cexp(-r/a)

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter jqmhelios
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Normalization
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the normalization of the function F = Cexp(-r/a) in the context of three-dimensional integrals. The original poster (OP) attempted to normalize by squaring the integrand and integrating from 0 to infinity, resulting in confusion over the expected answer. The correct approach involves integrating over spherical coordinates using the volume element dv = 4πr² dr, which the OP did not initially consider. Clarifications regarding the physical dimensions of the constant C and the necessity of clear communication in forum discussions were also emphasized.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of three-dimensional spherical coordinates
  • Familiarity with integration techniques, particularly in calculus
  • Knowledge of normalization in quantum mechanics
  • Proficiency in LaTeX for mathematical expressions
NEXT STEPS
  • Learn about spherical coordinates and their application in integration
  • Study the concept of normalization in quantum mechanics
  • Practice integration techniques, including integration by parts
  • Familiarize yourself with LaTeX for clear mathematical communication
USEFUL FOR

Students and professionals in physics, particularly those studying quantum mechanics, as well as anyone looking to improve their calculus skills and mathematical communication in online forums.

jqmhelios
Messages
12
Reaction score
7
TL;DR
I cannot normalise this, in fact, I cannot normalise any integral in QM at all unless it is a 1D infinite square well (and struggle even then)
I need to normalise F= Cexp(-r/a)
To do this, I squared the integrand to get C^2exp(-2r/a).
Then I integrated with infinite limits (from 0 to infinity) and equated to 1. The answer to the integral (confirmed by symbolab) is -a/2exp(-2r/a). When I set the limits I get sqrt(2/a). The book says the answer should be (pi*a^3)^1/2. I do not understand what I am doing wrong- I checked everything.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
At this level, it's going to be difficult for you without Latex. Also, you need to show us what you are doing. I guess you are doing a 3D integral in spherical coordinates.
 
In addition, when you post what you do in LaTeX, please be clear what is equal to what. "I get..." can mean several different things. Be explicit.
 
Do you have a specific textbook exercise on mind here? If so you will get better and more helpful answers by posting in the homework forums and using the homework template that appears when you start a thread there.
 
Isn’t it 3D with
r^2 =x^2+y^2+z^2?
 
Use ##dv=4 \pi r^2 \, dr ##. If your calculus is good enough that you can do inegration by parts a couple times, it should get you there. I get the answer for ## C ## is the inverse of the book's answer that you gave.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Demystifier
anuttarasammyak said:
Isn’t it
Quite possibly. But isn't it the OP's responsibility to post a clear question and not ours to figure out what they must have meant? And isn't it the OP's responsibility to look in on his thread and answer clarifying questions rather than to leave us to guess?
 
Constat C has physical dimension of L^(-d/2) where d is space dimension. The "right" answer suggests d=3. But Sherlock Holmes seems not be welcomed here.
 
Last edited:
  • Haha
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71
Sherlock Holmes should not be required. A question that requires detective work is not a good question, and the OP should clarify. Also, our detective work is not always perfect and we run the substantial risk of being told "No, that's not what I meant at all". The forum has plenty of examples.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71 and anuttarasammyak
  • #10
jqmhelios said:
I cannot normalise any integral in QM at all unless it is a 1D infinite square well (and struggle even then)
Your problem is not QM. Your problem is calculus, which you should learn before trying to learn QM.

As others told you, in this case you need to know that ##r## is a radial coordinate in 3-dimensional space, so you should not integrate just over ##dr##. You should integrate over ##4\pi r^2 dr##. If you have no idea why, you should spend some time with learning calculus first.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71 and PeroK
  • #11
The OP has not been back since @PeroK’s comment (#2). I am guessing that was sufficient.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K