Normalization of a gaussian wavefunction

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on the normalization of a Gaussian wavefunction, specifically the function \(\psi(x) = Ne^{-\frac{|x-x_o|}{2a}}\). Participants detail the normalization process using the integral \(\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\bar{\psi(x)}\psi(x)dx = 1\) to find the normalization constant \(N\). They emphasize the importance of breaking the integral into two parts to handle the absolute value, simplifying the integration process. The conversation highlights the utility of recognizing the symmetry in the function to streamline calculations.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of quantum mechanics and the Schrödinger equation
  • Familiarity with Gaussian integrals and their properties
  • Knowledge of integration techniques, including polar coordinates and u-substitution
  • Basic concepts of real and complex numbers in mathematical contexts
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of Gaussian integrals, particularly the integral of \(e^{-x^2}\)
  • Learn about the normalization of wavefunctions in quantum mechanics
  • Explore techniques for integrating functions with absolute values
  • Investigate the implications of complex variables in quantum mechanics
USEFUL FOR

Students of quantum mechanics, physicists working with wavefunctions, and anyone interested in advanced integration techniques in mathematical physics.

skate_nerd
Messages
174
Reaction score
0
I'm given a wavefunction (I think it's implied this is some sort of solution to the Schrödinger equation) in my quantum mechanics class, and I need to normalize it to find its constant coefficient.
So I have
$$\psi(x)=Ne^{-\frac{|x-x_o|}{2a}}$$
And the formula for normalizing this to find \(N\) would be
$$\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\bar{\psi(x)}\psi(x){dx}=1$$
Plugging in \(\psi(x)\) gives
$$1=\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}N^{2}e^{-\frac{|x-x_o|}{a}}dx$$

At first I was thinking I could just take the derivative of the exponent and divide by that to solve the integral but I realized that wouldn't work out right, and this integral behaves somewhat like a gaussian integral like when you need to integrate \(e^{-x^2}\).

I know the process of how to integrate \(e^{-x^2}\) from negative infinity to infinity (defining the integral as I and then squaring it, changing to polar coordinates, u-subbing and then taking the root of that solution to get \(\sqrt{\pi}\)) but when I tried to do that with \(\frac{|x-x_o|}{a}\) instead of \(x^2\) I end up with a weird expression in the exponent that I don't know what to do with. I was hoping changing to polar coordinates would work but I don't see how to do that with this.
Any guidance would be really appreciated! Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Separate the integral to integrate $(-\infty, x_0]$ and $[x_0, \infty)$ separately. Then the absolute value disappears, you can factor out the constant $x_0$ and are left with a standard exponential. Or is $x$ a complex number or something like that? It's been a while since my introductory quantum mechanics class.
 
I don't think we are expected to know how to work with complex variables in this class so \(x\) is probably real.
But yeah I see what you're saying, and breaking up the bounds to make two integrals will be helpful if I can figure out how to integrate this crazy integrand...
 
skatenerd said:
I don't think we are expected to know how to work with complex variables in this class so \(x\) is probably real.
But yeah I see what you're saying, and breaking up the bounds to make two integrals will be helpful if I can figure out how to integrate this crazy integrand...

With complex numbers it could probably be worked about the same since the integral would be spherically symmetric, but I wouldn't know. Anyway once you've broken it up it becomes simple because the annoying absolute values disappear, as:

$$|x - x_0| = \begin{cases}x - x_0 ~ ~ ~ \mathrm{if} ~ x > x_0 \\ x_0 - x ~ ~ ~ \mathrm{if} ~ x < x_0\end{cases}$$

Furthermore since $|x - x_0|$ is symmetric you only need to compute one side of the integral, the whole integral is just twice that.
 
Ahhh I see what you're saying now! Thanks that helps a lot, neat little trick...
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K