Normalizing a Wave Function Combining Two Infinite-Well States

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the normalization of a wave function that combines two different infinite-well states in quantum mechanics. The original poster presents a wave function expressed as a linear combination of two states and seeks to demonstrate its normalization.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the normalization condition for wave functions and discuss the implications of orthonormality for the states involved. Questions arise regarding the handling of exponential terms in integrals and the meaning of the Kronecker delta.

Discussion Status

Some participants provide guidance on the properties of orthonormal wave functions, suggesting that the original poster may not need to perform detailed integrations due to known orthonormality. Others express confusion about specific terms and seek clarification on the reasoning behind certain mathematical steps.

Contextual Notes

There is mention of potential confusion regarding the dimensionality of variables in the integrals, as well as the original poster's reliance on integral tables, which may have led to misinterpretations. The discussion reflects a mix of understanding and uncertainty about the normalization process in quantum mechanics.

Xkaliber
Messages
59
Reaction score
0
Hi all,

I've got a tough problem that I need some guidance on.

Question: Consider a wave function that is a combination of two different infinite-well states, the nth and the mth.

[tex]\Psi(x,t)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\psi_n(x)e^{-i(\frac{E_n}{\hbar})t}+\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\psi_m(x)e^{-i(\frac{E_m}{\hbar})t}[/tex]

Show that [tex]\Psi(x,t)[/tex] is properly normalized.


Answer:

A wave function is normalized if [tex]\int_{0}^{L} |\Psi(x,t)|^2 dx = 1[/tex] where L is the length of the infinite well.

[tex]\int_{0}^{L} |\Psi(x,t)|^2 dx = 1[/tex]

[tex]\int_{0}^{L} \Psi^*(x,t)\Psi(x,t) dx = 1[/tex]

[tex]\int_{0}^{L} [\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\psi_n(x)e^{i(\frac{E_n}{\hbar})t}+\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\psi_m(x)e^{i(\frac{E_m}{\hbar})t}] [\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\psi_n(x)e^{-i(\frac{E_n}{\hbar})t}+\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\psi_m(x)e^{-i(\frac{E_m}{\hbar})t}]dx = 1[/tex]

[tex]\int_{0}^{L} \frac{1}{2}\psi^2_n(x)dx+\int_{0}^{L} \frac{1}{2}\psi_n(x)\psi_m(x)e^{[i(\frac{E_m}{\hbar})-i(\frac{E_n}{\hbar})]t}dx+\int_{0}^{L} \frac{1}{2}\psi_n(x)\psi_m(x)e^{[i(\frac{E_n}{\hbar})-i(\frac{E_m}{\hbar})]t}dx+\int_{0}^{L} \frac{1}{2}\psi^2_m(x)dx[/tex]

For an infinite well, we know that [tex]\psi_n(x)=\sqrt{\frac{2}{L}}sin\frac{n\pi x}{L}[/tex] and [tex]\psi_m(x)=\sqrt{\frac{2}{L}}sin\frac{m\pi x}{L}[/tex]. Substituting into the above integrals gives us

[tex]\frac{1}{2}\int_{0}^{L} \frac{2}{L}sin^2\frac{n\pi x}{L}dx+\frac{1}{2}\int_{0}^{L} \frac{2}{L}sin\frac{n\pi x}{L}sin\frac{m\pi x}{L}e^{[i(\frac{E_m}{\hbar})-i(\frac{E_n}{\hbar})]t}dx+\frac{1}{2}\int_{0}^{L}\frac{2}{L}sin\frac{n\pi x}{L}sin\frac{m\pi x}{L}e^{[i(\frac{E_n}{\hbar})-i(\frac{E_m}{\hbar})]t}dx+\frac{1}{2}\int_{0}^{L}\frac{2}{L}sin^2\frac{m\pi x}{L}dx[/tex]

The first and last integral terms are 1/2, which sum to one. Since all 4 terms must sum to one, that means the two middle integrals must sum to zero. I used an integral table to solve the two middle integrals. (
http://teachers.sduhsd.k12.ca.us/abrown/Classes/CalculusC/IntegralTablesStewart.pdf" #79) However, the result gives an answer involving [tex]\frac{sin(\frac{n\pi}{L}-\frac{m\pi}{L})}{\frac{n\pi}{L}-\frac{m\pi}{L}}-\frac{sin(\frac{n\pi}{L}+\frac{m\pi}{L})}{\frac{n\pi}{L}+\frac{m\pi}{L}}[/tex], which depend upon L. Can someone please tell me where I went wrong?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Remember that for all wave functions whaich are part of a complete set

[tex]\int \psi_{n}(x)\psi_{m}(x) dx = \delta_{nm}[/tex]

so you don't need to get into integrating all of the sine functions, and you have forgotten to take the exponential funcitons out of the intergral because they are not functions of [tex]x[/tex].
 
Thanks for the reply. Could you please explain what [tex]\delta_{nm}[/tex] is? I don't believe I have been introduced to that term.

Regarding the exponential functions, I did not take them out of the integrals above but did take them out on my paper which is how I obtained the [tex]\frac{sin(\frac{n\pi}{L}-\frac{m\pi}{L})}{\frac{n\pi}{L}-\frac{m\pi}{L}}-\frac{sin(\frac{n\pi}{L}+\frac{m\pi}{L})}{\frac{n\ pi}{L}+\frac{m\pi}{L}}[/tex]
. Sorry for the confusion.
 
Last edited:
[tex]\delta_{nm}=\left\{ \begin{array} {c} 1 \ \ \mbox{if} \ \ m=n & 0 \ \ \mbox{otherwise} \end{array}[/tex]
 
Xkaliber said:
Thanks for the reply. Could you please explain what [tex]\delta_{nm}[/tex] is? I don't believe I have been introduced to that term.

Regarding the exponential functions, I did not take them out of the integrals above but did take them out on my paper which is how I obtained the [tex]\frac{sin(\frac{n\pi}{L}-\frac{m\pi}{L})}{\frac{n\pi}{L}-\frac{m\pi}{L}}-\frac{sin(\frac{n\pi}{L}+\frac{m\pi}{L})}{\frac{n\ pi}{L}+\frac{m\pi}{L}}[/tex]
. Sorry for the confusion.
[tex]\delta_{nm}[/tex] is the Kronecker Delta. It has the value 1 when the two indices are equal and zero otherwise. There has to be something wrong with your sine expressions. The argument of a trig function must be dimensionless.

The point Dr Transport was making is that you already know the wave functions are orthonormal. You should not have to work out the integrals again.
 
I think I can see where you are going with this. However, I still do not understand why [tex]\int_{0}^{L} \psi_{n}(x)\psi_{m}(x) dx = 0[/tex] in this case. Can someone show (by doing the integral) or otherwise explain why this is so?

(Dan, is the L in the sine expression, in fact, dimensionless since the x/L fractions (before the integration took place) canceled out the units of length?)
 
Xkaliber said:
I think I can see where you are going with this. However, I still do not understand why [tex]\int_{0}^{L} \psi_{n}(x)\psi_{m}(x) dx = 0[/tex] in this case. Can someone show (by doing the integral) or otherwise explain why this is so?

(Dan, is the L in the sine expression, in fact, dimensionless since the x/L fractions (before the integration took place) canceled out the units of length?)
Before you integrated, you had x/L in the trig functions and dx/L in the integral with limits proportional to L. Everything was dimensionless. When you looked up your integrals, you somehow lost track of things. You might want to change to a dimensionless variable before integrting. y = x/L would do nicely.
 
Xkaliber said:
I think I can see where you are going with this. However, I still do not understand why [tex]\int_{0}^{L} \psi_{n}(x)\psi_{m}(x) dx = 0[/tex] in this case. Can someone show (by doing the integral) or otherwise explain why this is so?

It is a postulate of QM that the (normalized )eigenfunctions of the hamiltonian form an orthonormal basis for the system. For regular vectors, orthonormality of a basis means that

[tex]\hat{e}_n\cdot \hat{e}_m=\delta_{nm}[/tex]

right? Well for eigenfunctions we extend this definition to mean that

[tex]\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} \psi_{n}(x)\psi_{m}(x) dx = \delta_{nm}[/tex]

In the particular case of the infinite well eigenfunctions, you can verify that they are orthonormal by computing the intgegral.. for inxtance by use of the identity 2sinAsinB=(cos(A+B/2)+sin(A-B/2)) [or somethign like that].
 
Last edited:
Thanks guys. I got the integral to equal zero using Dan's suggestion. It's satisfying to mathematically see how a value is obtained rather than just taking it for granted. I have a few other parts related to this question to answer so I may be back if I encounter any more roadblocks. :smile:
 

Similar threads

Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
24
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K