1. Limited time only! Sign up for a free 30min personal tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Non-Stationary State Wavefunction - Normalized? <L^2>? Uncertainty on L^2?

  1. Mar 21, 2012 #1
    1. The problem statement, all variables and given/known data

    Consider the nonstationary state:

    [itex]\Psi = \sqrt{\frac{1}{3}}\Psi_{22-1} + \sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}\Psi_{110}[/itex]

    Where [itex]\Psi_{22-1}[/itex] and [itex]\Psi_{110}[/itex] are normalized, orthogonal and stationary states of some radial potential. Is [itex]\Psi[/itex] properly normalized? Calculate the expectation value of [itex]L^{2}[/itex] and the uncertainty in [itex]L^{2}[/itex] for a particle in this state.

    2. Relevant equations

    [itex]|a_{n_{1}l_{1}m_{1}}|^{2} + |a_{n_{2}l_{2}m_{2}}|^{2} = 1[/itex] (1)

    [itex]<L^{2}> = \int_{all{}\Omega}\Psi^{*}(-\hbar^{2}\Lambda^{2})\Psi d\tau[/itex] (2)

    [itex]\Delta L^{2} = \sqrt{<(L^{2})^{2}> - <L^{2}>^{2}}[/itex] (3)

    3. The attempt at a solution

    For the first part, I think it's safe in this situation to use equation (1) where the [itex]a_{nlm}[/itex] terms are the two coefficients in [itex]\Psi[/itex], but I'm not sure if it applies when the quantum numbers aren't the same for the two stationary states.

    For the second part, still not positive, but I think if I use equation (2), the [itex]L^{2}[/itex] operator results in [itex]\hbar^{2}l(l+1)[/itex] coming outside the integral, and because the two states are orthogonal, the integral and therefore [itex]L^{2}[/itex] goes to 0.

    The last part has me tripped up the most because I don't know whether [itex]L^{2}[/itex] being zero automatically means the uncertainty is zero, but something tells me it's not that simple.

    I'm just fuzzy on a lot of the concepts surrounding this topic so any clarification/confirmation will be much, much appreciated.

    Thank you very much for your time, and if these answers are correct, sorry I wasted it :s

    -Mike
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Mar 24, 2012 #2
    Ok, for the first part, all you need to know is that the states are orthogonal and normalized. This means
    [tex] \big< \Psi_{n'l'm'} \big\lvert \, \Psi_{nlm} \big> =\big<n'l'm' \big\lvert \,nlm\big> = 0~~ \text{if}~~nlm=n'l'm';~1~~\text{if}~~nlm \ne n'l'm'[/tex]
    So for your state, we have
    [tex] \big< \Psi \, \big\lvert \, \Psi \big> =\bigg( \sqrt{ \frac{1}{3}} \Psi_{22-1}^*+ \sqrt{ \frac{2}{3}} \Psi_{110}^* \bigg)\bigg( \sqrt{ \frac{1}{3}} \Psi_{22-1}+ \sqrt{ \frac{2}{3}} \Psi_{110} \bigg)= \frac{1}{3}(1)+ \frac{2}{3}(1) + \frac{2}{6}(0)\frac{2}{6}(0)= \frac{3}{3} =1[/tex]
    So yes, it is normalized.
    For the second part,
    [tex] L^2 \big\lvert \,nlm \big> = \hbar^2 l(l+1) \big\lvert \,nlm \big> [/tex]
    or
    [tex] \big<n'l'm' \big\lvert L^2 \big\lvert \,nlm \big> = \big<n'l'm'\big\lvert \hbar^2 l(l+1) \big\lvert \,nlm \big> = \hbar^2 l(l+1)~~\text{if}~ l=l';~~0~~ \text{if} ~~l \ne l'[/tex]
    so,
    [tex] \begin{multline}\big<L^2 \big> = \frac{1}{3} \big<22-1 \big\lvert \,\hbar^2 2(2+1) \big\lvert 22-1 \big> +\frac{2}{3} \big<110 \big\lvert \,\hbar^2 1(1+1) \big\lvert 110 \big>\\ = \frac{1}{3} \hbar^2 2(2+1) \big<22-1 \big\lvert \ 22-1 \big> +\frac{2}{3} \hbar^2 1(1+1) \big<110 \big\lvert \, 110 \big> = \frac{1}{3} \hbar^2 2(2+1) +\frac{2}{3} \hbar^2 1(1+1) \end{multline}[/tex]

    and etc. You get the idea. By the way, you need to do NO integration on this problem. That's the beauty of orthonormality.
     
    Last edited: Mar 24, 2012
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: Non-Stationary State Wavefunction - Normalized? <L^2>? Uncertainty on L^2?
  1. [x,l^2] solution help (Replies: 2)

Loading...