I shot schrodinger's cat and then I ate it

In summary: I'm not sure where the minus sign went from the second equation.In summary, the problem is that you are not understanding how the form of the solutions to the Schrodinger equation depend on the initial condition you choose for x=0.
  • #1
Just some guy
69
1
I'm currently reading up about solving the schrodinger equation for a one-dimensional particle in a one-dimensional box with an infinite level of potential outside the box, and I have a *slight* problem (no, really, it is very slight)

I've got to the equation where the Wavefunction = Acos(2*x*pi/lambda - omega*t). And the text I'm working on says that using the Planck relationship omega is equal to energy? ey!:grumpy: I was under the impression that omega equalled angular velocity (not that I have a clue why a wave would have angular velocity, but that's another story).

Besides, I'm not entirely sure how that equation is in the form it is - the wave equation arrived at by modelling a traveling 1-d wave comes to Asin(2*pi/lambda(x ± vt). Firstly, how does that get to a cos expression (is that just coming from using different initial conditions where in the first case x = A at t = 0 (well, psi, or whatever) and x = 0 at t = 0 in the second? That leaves the omega*t bit of the first equation - I'm assuming that is equivalent to 2*pi*vt/lambda from the traveling wave equation - how do those two relate?

And finally where did the minus sign go from the second equation?

Blech, sorry for the convoluted post, I'm not really this confused! honest!:uhh:

Cheers,
Just some guy
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
You really have not provide sufficient information for anyone (at least for me) to accurately address this specific problem. You present a rather specific form of the answer or end result, but you left out important info on the nature of the problem.

Just some guy said:
I've got to the equation where the Wavefunction = Acos(2*x*pi/lambda - omega*t). And the text I'm working on says that using the Planck relationship omega is equal to energy? ey!:grumpy: I was under the impression that omega equalled angular velocity (not that I have a clue why a wave would have angular velocity, but that's another story).

[tex] E = hf[/tex]

But [tex] f = \frac{\omega}{2 \pi}[/tex]

So [tex] E = \frac{h \omega}{2 \pi}[/tex]

or [tex] E = \hbar \omega[/tex]

This means that [tex]\omega[/tex] is equivalent to energy except for a Planck constant.

Besides, I'm not entirely sure how that equation is in the form it is - the wave equation arrived at by modelling a traveling 1-d wave comes to Asin(2*pi/lambda(x ± vt). Firstly, how does that get to a cos expression (is that just coming from using different initial conditions where in the first case x = A at t = 0 (well, psi, or whatever) and x = 0 at t = 0 in the second? That leaves the omega*t bit of the first equation - I'm assuming that is equivalent to 2*pi*vt/lambda from the traveling wave equation - how do those two relate?

This is where you left out quite a bit of info. The form of the solution to the wavefunction depends on where you choose x=0. If you choose it to be at one of the walls, then your solution will always be of the sine form due to the boundary condition. But if you choose to be at the center of the well, then it will be an alternating sine and cosine functions.

I'm a bit confused when you indicated that the wave equation was "... arrived at by modelling a traveling 1-d wave...". Did you not solve this from the Schrodinger equation? If you did, then there is no "modelling" of any kind. It's just solving the differential equation via brute force and that's that.

Zz.
 
  • #3
ZapperZ said:
I'm a bit confused when you indicated that the wave equation was "... arrived at by modelling a traveling 1-d wave...". Did you not solve this from the Schrodinger equation? If you did, then there is no "modelling" of any kind. It's just solving the differential equation via brute force and that's that.

Well, the text I'm reading got the equation from solving the wave equation for an ideal string: d^2y/dx^2 = (p/t)d^2y/dt^2, to which the solution is y(x,t) = Asin((2pi/lambda)(x±vt))
 
  • #4
Just some guy said:
Well, the text I'm reading got the equation from solving the wave equation for an ideal string: d^2y/dx^2 = (p/t)d^2y/dt^2, to which the solution is y(x,t) = Asin((2pi/lambda)(x±vt))

Yes, now look at the time-independent schrodinger equation for V=0, and see if you see the connection. Then look at the boundary conditions.

Zz.
 
  • #5
you mean -h-bar^2/2m*((d^2)psi/dx^2) = E*psi? Sorry, I don't see the relation - does h-bar/2m relate to p/t?
 
  • #6
Er.. I goofed. I should have said time DEPENDENT schrodinger equation.

Don't pay attention to the h-bar, etc... those are just constants. Pay attention to the FORM of the differentials.

Zz.
 
  • #7
ZapperZ said:
Er.. I goofed. I should have said time DEPENDENT schrodinger equation.

Don't pay attention to the h-bar, etc... those are just constants. Pay attention to the FORM of the differentials.

Zz.

ok, so the partial derivatives are sort of equivalent - I don't get the connection though.

Basically I don't get how one reaches the wavefunction for an electron (=Acos((2*pi*x/lambda) * (omega*t)) from the expression for a traveling wave in one dimension - y(x,t) = Asin(2*pi/lambda)*(x±vt)

The opening text says "Starting with the expression for a traveling wave in one dimension, the connection can be made to the Schrodinger equation." - I just don't get how :grumpy:
 

1. What is Schrodinger's cat thought experiment?

Schrodinger's cat is a thought experiment in quantum mechanics, proposed by Austrian physicist Erwin Schrodinger in 1935. It illustrates the concept of superposition and the idea that a quantum system can exist in multiple states at the same time.

2. What does it mean to "shoot" Schrodinger's cat?

To "shoot" Schrodinger's cat refers to the hypothetical act of measuring or observing the state of the cat in the thought experiment. This action is said to collapse the cat's superposition into a definite state.

3. Why did you shoot and eat Schrodinger's cat in the first place?

As a scientist, I do not condone or advocate for the harm or killing of animals. This is a purely hypothetical thought experiment and should not be taken literally.

4. What is the significance of eating the cat after shooting it?

The act of eating the cat in this thought experiment is meant to provoke thought about the implications of quantum mechanics on our perception of reality. It questions the idea of an objective reality and the role of observation in determining the state of a system.

5. Is it possible to actually shoot and eat Schrodinger's cat?

No, as mentioned before, this is a thought experiment and should not be taken literally. It is meant to illustrate a concept in quantum mechanics and does not involve any actual harm to animals.

Similar threads

  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
10
Views
921
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
19
Views
796
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
3
Views
952
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
8
Views
568
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
4
Views
939
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
6
Views
231
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
884
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
226
Replies
2
Views
1K
Back
Top