Is the Integral of (psi_0 * d/dx psi_1) Mathematically Valid?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Aziza
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Integral
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the mathematical validity of an integral involving the first two stationary states of the simple harmonic oscillator (SHO), specifically the expression ∫ψ₀ (d/dx)ψ₁ dx. The original poster questions the correctness of their approach to evaluating this integral, particularly focusing on the limits of integration and the behavior of the wavefunctions at infinity.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Conceptual clarification

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the validity of canceling differentials in the integral and changing limits based on the behavior of the wavefunctions at infinity. There is a discussion about the implications of wavefunctions not vanishing at infinity and the conditions under which the integral evaluates to zero.

Discussion Status

The discussion is ongoing, with participants providing insights into the properties of the wavefunctions and questioning the assumptions made by the original poster. Some participants suggest that the integral may not be zero and highlight the need to consider the specific forms of the wavefunctions involved.

Contextual Notes

There is a mention of constraints related to the visibility of an attached image, which may contain relevant information for the problem. Additionally, participants reference the need for proper mathematical notation and the use of LaTeX for clarity in communication.

Aziza
Messages
189
Reaction score
1
I need help determining if the following statement is mathematically valid, where psi_0 and psi_1 are the first two stationary states of the SHO:


http://af10.mail.ru/cgi-bin/readmsg?id=13807553990000000798;0;1&mode=attachment&bs=2783&bl=281383&ct=image%2fjpeg&cn=mms_picture.jpeg&cte=base64

Basically what I did was cancel the dx's as if it was algebraic equation, and then since my integration became wrt psi_1, I changed my limits from 0->0, since at +/- infinity, psi_1 must be zero. And of course if your limits of integration are same, result must be zero. Specifically, I would like to know where exactly (at which of my above steps) is the flaw? (there must be a flaw since I do not get correct solution when I use this to calculate other stuff...this integral should in fact not be zero).

If I replace psi_1 by psi_0, for example, then I think this is correct, since I did it on my recent QM test and got full credit.

Any help with this is appreciated!








Any help is appreciated!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hello,

[itex]\psi_{1}(x) = \left(\frac{m\omega}{\pi\hbar}\right)^{1/4}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2^{n}n!}}2\xi e^{-\frac{\xi^{2}}{2}}[/itex]. And [itex]\xi = \sqrt{\frac{m\omega}{\hbar}}x[/itex]

So it does not vanish at minus infinity.
 
PhysicsGente said:
Hello,

[itex]\psi_{1}(x) = \left(\frac{m\omega}{\pi\hbar}\right)^{1/4}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2^{n}n!}}2\xi e^{-\frac{\xi^{2}}{2}}[/itex]. And [itex]\xi = \sqrt{\frac{m\omega}{\hbar}}x[/itex]

So it does not vanish at minus infinity.

How does it not vanish at minus infinity? first, it is a wavefunction, so by the QM postulates it must vanish at +/- inifinity for it to be a physical solution.

second, just looking at the formula above you can see it does vanish, since at -∞ you basically have the quantity (-∞)*exp(-∞)...this is equal to zero as you can prove with l'hopital rule
 
Aziza, we can't see the image attached to an email hosted at mail.ru. Please post it in the thread.
 
sorry i did not realize that my picture could not be seen. Here is the equation:


∫ψ0[itex]\frac{d}{dx}[/itex]ψ1dx = ∫ψ01 = ψ0ψ1|[itex]^{0}_{0}[/itex] = 0

Where the first integral runs from -inf to +inf, and the second from 0 to 0, since my integration is now wrt dψ1 and ψ1 is zero at +/- inf
 
Here's a similar specific example of what you did:
$$\int \cot\theta\,d\theta = \int \frac{1}{\sin\theta}\cos \theta\,d\theta = \int \frac{1}{\sin\theta}\,\frac{d}{d\theta}\sin \theta\,d\theta = \int \frac{1}{\sin\theta}\,d(\sin\theta).$$ So far so good, but from here, you claimed that
$$\int \frac{1}{\sin\theta}\,d(\sin\theta) = \frac{1}{\sin\theta}{\sin\theta}=1.$$
 
vela said:
Here's a similar specific example of what you did:
$$\int \cot\theta\,d\theta = \int \frac{1}{\sin\theta}\cos \theta\,d\theta = \int \frac{1}{\sin\theta}\,\frac{d}{d\theta}\sin \theta\,d\theta = \int \frac{1}{\sin\theta}\,d(\sin\theta).$$ So far so good, but from here, you claimed that
$$\int \frac{1}{\sin\theta}\,d(\sin\theta) = \frac{1}{\sin\theta}{\sin\theta}=1.$$

no...then using my method above i would say sinθ=u and so integrate wrt u...so the answer is ln(sinθ) by my method.


the reason i just pulled out the ψ0 was because the integration is wrt ψ1...so ψ0 is treated as constant...is there an error here?
 
I did exactly what you did where ##\psi_0 = \frac{1}{\sin \theta}## and ##\psi_1 = \sin\theta## and where ##\theta## plays the role of ##x##.
 
  • #10
vela said:
I did exactly what you did where ##\psi_0 = \frac{1}{\sin \theta}## and ##\psi_1 = \sin\theta## and where ##\theta## plays the role of ##x##.

ohh I am sorry yes i see what you mean...so basically if i don't know (or actually just don't plug in, in this case) the actual psi's and their dependence on x, then there is no way to do this integral
 
  • #11
The Hermite polynomials have certain properties that might be helpful to evaluate the integral. You could try looking into that.
 
  • #12
Aziza said:
How does it not vanish at minus infinity? first, it is a wavefunction, so by the QM postulates it must vanish at +/- inifinity for it to be a physical solution.

second, just looking at the formula above you can see it does vanish, since at -∞ you basically have the quantity (-∞)*exp(-∞)...this is equal to zero as you can prove with l'hopital rule

Yes, I'm sorry I overlooked the [itex]^2[/itex]. My bad.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
4K
Replies
12
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
5K