I want to expand a Gaussian wavepacket in terms of sines

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

This discussion focuses on expanding a Gaussian wavepacket, represented by the function $$\phi(x) = \frac{1}{(2\pi\sigma^2)^{\frac{1}{4}}}\exp \Big(-\frac{(x-x_{0})^{2}}{4\sigma^{2}} + ik_{0}(x-x_{0})\Big)$$, in terms of sine functions $$\psi_{n}(x) = \sqrt{2}\sin(n\pi x)$$. The coefficients $$\alpha_{n}$$ are computed using orthogonality properties of sine functions, leading to an approximate result that differs from the expected outcome in the referenced paper. The correct expression for $$\alpha_{n}$$ is given as $$\alpha_{n} \approx i(2 \pi \sigma^{2})^{\frac{1}{4}} \exp\Big[-(k_{0}-\pi n)^{2} \sigma^{2} + i (k_{0} - \pi n) x_{0}\Big]$$. The discussion also raises the question of whether to apply the stationary phase method or the error function for a more accurate solution.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Gaussian wavepackets and their mathematical representation.
  • Familiarity with Fourier series and orthogonality of sine functions.
  • Knowledge of complex exponentials and their properties.
  • Experience with asymptotic analysis, particularly in the context of integrals.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the stationary phase method for evaluating integrals in asymptotic analysis.
  • Learn about the error function and its applications in Gaussian integrals.
  • Explore the properties of orthogonal functions in quantum mechanics.
  • Investigate the implications of the limit $$\sigma << 1$$ in wavepacket analysis.
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, mathematicians, and researchers working with quantum mechanics, particularly those focusing on wavepacket dynamics and Fourier analysis.

saadhusayn
Messages
17
Reaction score
1
TL;DR
I have a Gaussian wavepacket $$ \phi(x) = \frac{1}{(2\pi\sigma^2)^{\frac{1}{4}}}\exp \Big(-\frac{(x-x_{0})^{2}}{4\sigma^{2}} + ik_{0}(x-x_{0})\Big) $$

I want to find the Fourier sine coefficients when expanding this in terms of $$\psi_{n}(x) = \sqrt{2} \sin(n \pi x)$$.
From this paper, I am trying to compute the coefficients in the expansion of the Gaussian wavepacket

$$\phi(x) = \frac{1}{(2\pi\sigma^2)^{\frac{1}{4}}}\exp \Big(-\frac{(x-x_{0})^{2}}{4\sigma^{2}} + ik_{0}(x-x_{0})\Big) $$ where $$\sigma << 1$$and $$k_{0} >> \frac{1}{\sigma}$$
in terms of the functions $$ \psi_{n}(x) = \sqrt{2}\sin(n\pi x).$$

My attempt is as follows:

$$\phi(x) = \sum_{m}\alpha_{m}\psi_{m}(x) $$

From the orthogonality of sines, we have $$ \int_{-1}^{1}\psi_{m}(x) \psi_{n}(x) dx = 2 \delta_{mn}.$$ This gives us
$$ \alpha_{n} = \frac{\sqrt{2}}{2}\frac{1}{(2\pi\sigma^2)^{\frac{1}{4}}} \int_{-1}^{1} dx \sin(n \pi x) \exp \Big(-\frac{(x-x_{0})^{2}}{4\sigma^{2}} + ik_{0}(x-x_{0})\Big).$$

My next step is to write the sine in terms of exponential functions and to complete the square on both terms to get:

$$ \alpha_{n} = \frac{1}{2i}\frac{1}{(8\pi \sigma^{2})^{\frac{1}{4}}}\int_{-1}^{+1}dx\Bigg(\exp\Big[-\frac{1}{4\sigma^{2}}(x-a_{+})^{2} -\sigma^2(k_{0}+\pi n)^2 +2in \pi x_{0}\Big] - \exp\Big[-\frac{1}{4\sigma^{2}}(x-a_{-})^{2} -\sigma^2(k_{0}-\pi n)^2 -2in \pi x_{0}\Big]\Bigg)$$


Here, $$a_{\pm} = 2\sigma^{2}\Big(\pm i n \pi + \frac{x_{0}}{2 \sigma^{2}} +ik_{0}\Big)$$

The next step is to use the fact that $$\sigma << 1$$ to extend the limits to $$\pm \infty$$ and treat the integral as approximately Gaussian. I get the following approximate result:

$$\alpha_{n} \approx -i(2 \pi \sigma^{2})^{\frac{1}{4}}\Bigg(\exp\Big[-\sigma^2(k_{0}+\pi n)^2 +2in \pi x_{0}\Big] - \exp\Big[-\sigma^2(k_{0}-\pi n)^2 -2in \pi x_{0}\Big]\Bigg)$$

But the correct answer according to the paper is (page 15, equation 5.9)

$$\alpha_{n} \approx i(2 \pi \sigma^{2})^{\frac{1}{4}} \exp\Big[-(k_{0}-\pi n)^{2} \sigma^{2} + i (k_{0} - \pi n) x_{0}\Big]$$

Would this problem be better solved using the stationary phase method or using the error function? Or do I have the right idea here?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It looks like the paper sets up the problem so that the eigenfunctions are orthogonal on the domain 0 to 1, so start there. I'd also try to do a change variable in the integral in such a way to see that the upper limit will go to infinity while the lower limit stays zero.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: saadhusayn
Yes, you're right about the upper limit being ##1##. Also, the fact that ##\sigma << 1## implies that we might as well take the upper limit to ##+\infty##. But other than a factor in front, I don't see how that changes my answer.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K