MHB Normalization of a gaussian wavefunction

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on normalizing a Gaussian wavefunction, specifically the function ψ(x) = Ne^{-\frac{|x-x_o|}{2a}}. To find the normalization constant N, the integral of the wavefunction squared must equal one, leading to the equation 1 = ∫N²e^{-\frac{|x-x_o|}{a}}dx from -∞ to ∞. Participants suggest breaking the integral into two parts to eliminate the absolute value, simplifying the integration process. By recognizing the symmetry of the function, the integral can be computed for one side and doubled for the final result. This approach clarifies the normalization process for the given wavefunction.
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 Schrodinger 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
 
Mathematics 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...
 
Seemingly by some mathematical coincidence, a hexagon of sides 2,2,7,7, 11, and 11 can be inscribed in a circle of radius 7. The other day I saw a math problem on line, which they said came from a Polish Olympiad, where you compute the length x of the 3rd side which is the same as the radius, so that the sides of length 2,x, and 11 are inscribed on the arc of a semi-circle. The law of cosines applied twice gives the answer for x of exactly 7, but the arithmetic is so complex that the...
Is it possible to arrange six pencils such that each one touches the other five? If so, how? This is an adaption of a Martin Gardner puzzle only I changed it from cigarettes to pencils and left out the clues because PF folks don’t need clues. From the book “My Best Mathematical and Logic Puzzles”. Dover, 1994.
Back
Top