Normalization of step potential eigenfunction

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the normalization of eigenfunctions for a Hamiltonian with a step potential in quantum mechanics. Participants explore the mathematical formulation of normalization conditions, the implications of integrating over different variables, and the challenges associated with obtaining delta function normalization for the eigenstates.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents the eigenstates of a Hamiltonian with a step potential and seeks to normalize them, suggesting that the normalization condition should yield a delta function.
  • Another participant argues that the integration should be over space rather than momentum, indicating that the scalar product should yield a delta function in terms of wave numbers.
  • A participant mentions the necessity of a convergence factor to handle integrals that diverge, particularly when verifying orthogonality of eigenfunctions.
  • Concerns are raised about the physical relevance of the wave function for x<0, with some participants questioning the validity of the exercise.
  • Discussion includes a reference to R Shankar's QM text, where a similar normalization problem is addressed, but some participants express skepticism about the assumptions made in that context.
  • One participant successfully finds a normalization constant using a convergence factor and the definition of a delta function as a limiting Lorentzian.
  • There is a discussion about the implications of the orthogonality condition, particularly when considering negative values of the wave number q and the potential for divergence in certain cases.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the normalization process and the physical interpretation of the wave functions. While some agree on the use of a convergence factor, others remain skeptical about the assumptions and the implications of the results. The discussion does not reach a consensus on the normalization approach or the physical validity of certain wave functions.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the normalization may not yield well-defined results if the spatial domain is unbounded. There are unresolved issues regarding the treatment of eigenstates and the implications of integrating over different variables, particularly concerning the delta function normalization.

tamaghnahazra
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
Hi,

I am stuck with a problem which effectively boils down to this: Given the eigenstates of a Hamiltonian with a step potential in the x direction

H=-\hbar^2/2m \nabla^2 + V_0 \Theta(x)
\psi(q)_{in}=cos(qx)-\frac{\sqrt{K_{V_0}^2-q^2}}{q}sin(qz) \qquad x&lt;0
\psi(q)_{out}=e^{-\sqrt{K_{V_0}^2-q^2}x} \qquad x&gt;0

where K_\xi refers to \sqrt{2m \xi /\hbar^2} and q is the momentum quantum number labelling the eigenstate with eigenenergy \frac{\hbar^2q^2}{2m}.

How do I normalize this? It seems to me that I should be able to get normalized states of the form

\int_{-\infty}^{0}\psi(q)_{in}\psi(q&#039;)_{in}^* dx+\int_{0}^{∞}\psi(q)_{out}\psi(q&#039;)_{out}^* dx=\delta(q-q&#039;)

but I cannot get anything resembling a delta function out of the left hand side when I plug the eigenfunctions into this equation.

Where am I going wrong? Shouldn't it be possible to get orthonormal states for this scenario?

Thanks...
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
It seems you are trying to get \delta(q-q&#039;) by integrating over q. That does not seem to be a good idea.

Usual approach is this: in case you have two functions f_E(q),f_{E&#039;}(q) that are eigenfunctions of the Hamiltonian for energies E, E&#039;, it should be possible to normalize them in such way that their scalar product is delta function in energy:

<br /> \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} f^*_E(q) f_{E&#039;}(q) dq = \delta(E-E&#039;)<br />
 
Oh... no the integration is over space... i should have mentioned that... i'll edit the post right away...
 
Ah I see, q is a wave number. Then it should be possible to get

<br /> \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \psi_q(x) \psi_{q&#039;}(x) dx = \delta(q-q&#039;)<br />

The way to verify this is so is to integrate the left-hand side (I'll denote it by F(q,q&#039;) ) with some continuous function of q:
<br /> \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} F(q,q&#039;) f(q) dq<br />

If the result is f(q&#039;) multiplied by some constant, then one can normalize the original functions \psi_q(x) so as to make F exactly into delta distribution.

Concerning the normalization, you may find this useful:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=643583&highlight=delta
 
If x is not bounded in some way, you won't get normalizable eigenstates. Any prefactor (!=0) leads to an undefined integral for ##\psi(q)_{in}##.
 
@Jano L.: Well F(q,q') unfortunately doesn't resemble a delta function, hence the problem.
@mfb: Thanks...

I found something relevant in R Shankar's QM text. He deals with a similar problem of normalization by setting the constant such that the incoming wave is normalized in the usual delta function sense. His rationale in doing so is that this reproduces a wave pulse located initially very far from the step will be properly reproduced.

I don't really buy his argument because it seems to me he's making two conflicting assumptions, one that the wave packet is strongly peaked in momentum space and two, that its far enough from the step that only the incoming wave is relevant at the initial time.
 
The right handed portion is not a physical wave function anyways, I don't see the point of this exercise.
 
and by the right handed portion you mean?
 
the wave function for x<0 is not a physical wave function
 
  • #10
It's a little easier to verify the orthogonality of two of these wave functions with different values of q. On the left side, you need to insert a convergence factor like exp[epsilon x], and take epsilon to zero after doing the integral. Then adding the contribution of the right side, you should get zero.

If the two values of q are the same, then you're integrating the square of a function, and it's pretty clear that the value is infinite.

So, this tells you that the result is some q-dependent number times a delta function. If you want the q-dependent number, you have to be more careful, retain epsilon, and then compute the integral over one of the q's, and then take epsilon to zero.

EDIT: OK, I actually checked the orthogonality (doing the math with Mathematica), and it worked. With the convergence factor, the cos*cos and sin*sin terms on the left both integrate to zero (in the limit epsilon -> 0); the sin*cos and cos*sin terms do not, and are exactly canceled by the contribution of the right-side integral (after some algebra).
 
Last edited:
  • #11
@avodyne: Thanks... that's a good idea... and it gives me some confidence that the normalization CAN be done... it would be great if you could give me the reference to where you first came across this trick, if you happen to be remember...

however the orthogonality here strictly holds only for q and q' are unrelated not unequal. For instance if you put q'=-q you can check that in the limit the integral again diverges and the said terms do not cancel each other. What I'm concerned about is that infinity at q=q' doesn't give me δ(q-q') it could also be δ(q^2-q'^2) or δ(any function with roots at q' and -q').

Thanks again for the convergence factor idea... I'm working on it some more...
 
  • #12
ok thanks, i managed to get it normalized using the convergence factor and the definition of a delta function as a limiting lorentzian...

the normalization constant i get is √(q/∏V_0)

i'll edit this post to show the steps if anybody faces the same problem later...
 
  • #13
tamaghnahazra said:
however the orthogonality here strictly holds only for q and q' are unrelated not unequal. For instance if you put q'=-q you can check that in the limit the integral again diverges and the said terms do not cancel each other. What I'm concerned about is that infinity at q=q' doesn't give me δ(q-q') it could also be δ(q^2-q'^2) or δ(any function with roots at q' and -q').
Note that the wave function is even in q, so -q and +q actually label the same state. To avoid confusion, we should just define q to be nonnegative.
 
  • #14
@Avodyne:Yes, that is true... my bad...

A clarification on the earlier post:

The integral evaluates to
\frac{\pi m V_0}{\hbar^2 q^2} \delta(q-q&#039;)
which is equivalent to
\frac{\pi V_0}{q} \delta(E_q-E_{q&#039;})
so the normalization constant would be \sqrt{\frac{\pi m V_0}{\hbar^2 q^2}} if we're integrating over quantum numbers in our subsequent calculations or \sqrt{\frac{\pi V_0}{q}} if we're integrating over energy.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
6K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K