Mathematical conundrum when adding complex exponentials

Click For Summary
The discussion revolves around the mathematical challenges encountered when solving the infinite square well problem in quantum mechanics using complex exponentials. The user initially presents a differential equation and explores the general solution involving complex exponentials, interpreting it as a sum of vectors. However, they encounter issues when applying boundary conditions, leading to the conclusion that the constant C must equal zero, which is problematic. Another participant points out that the assumption of k' being constant is incorrect, emphasizing that derivatives must account for the variable nature of k. The user reflects on this feedback and indicates they have resolved their initial confusion but intends to pose another question in a separate thread.
Runei
Messages
193
Reaction score
17
Hi there,

Once again I find myself twiddling around with some quantum mechanics, and I bumped into something I find strange. I can't see what the error of my thinking is, so I hope someone could be able to point it out.

I'm looking at solutions to the infinite square well, and arrive at the simple differential equation

\frac{d^2\Psi}{dx^2} = -k^2 \Psi

The solution to this can be written in terms of complex exponentials or sines and cosines. I bumped into the weird stuff when I use complex exponentials.

So the general solution in that case would be

##\Psi(x) = Ae^{ikx}+Be^{-ikx}##

Now, what I then started thinking was: "Hmmm... This could be viewed mathematically as a sum of two vectors, and solution is simply another vector."

So I drew this picture to illustrate the idea:

?temp_hash=98f0bfa6626fe3330472390e3bfc5456.png

So from that perspective it seems that the solution could also be written as

##\Psi(x) = Ce^{ik'x}##

However, using the simple constraints of the infinite square well quickly leads to problems - namely:

##|\Psi(0)|^2 = 0##

##C = 0##

So... Now really what I had hoped for. Where am I going taking a wrong turn? Has it to do with the x? That x should be x' also?

Thanks in advance :)
 

Attachments

  • drawing.png
    drawing.png
    6.7 KB · Views: 694
Physics news on Phys.org
The problem is that your ##k'## is going to be a function of ##x##. As such, you can not assume it to be constant and apply derivatives to the wave function with that assumption.
 
  • Like
Likes bhobba and Runei
Consider that ##e^{ix} + e^{-ix}## is equal to ##2 cos(x)## and so has no net imaginary component for all x. But a single ##e^{kix}## always has some net imaginary component (for finite ##k## and ##x##).
 
Thanks guys!

I gave it some more thought and think I nailed it down now.

I have another question now thought, but I'm going to make another thread for it.
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA

Similar threads

  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 59 ·
2
Replies
59
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K