Orthogonality of Stationary States

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on proving the orthogonality of stationary eigenstates for a particle in an infinite square well. The eigenstates are expressed as ##\phi_n (x) = \sqrt{\frac{2}{L}} \sin \frac{n \pi}{L}x##, leading to the integral ##\int^{\infty}_{\infty} dx \phi^*_m \phi_n##. The initial computation suggests that the integral is zero for ##m \neq n##, but confusion arises when considering the case where ##m = n##, as dividing by zero is problematic. It is clarified that the integral for the case ##m = n## should be computed separately, resulting in a non-zero value that confirms orthogonality. This highlights the importance of treating the two cases distinctly to validate the orthogonality condition.
BOAS
Messages
546
Reaction score
19

Homework Statement



I'm going back through some homework as revision, and came across this problem. It was marked as correct, but now I'm thinking it's unconvincing...

For a particle in an infinite square well, with ##V = 0 , 0 \leq x \leq L##, prove that the stationary eigenstates are mutually orthogonal.

##\int^{\infty}_{\infty} dx \phi^*_m \phi_n = \delta_{m,n}##

Homework Equations

The Attempt at a Solution



The stationary eigenstates are given by ##\phi_n (x) = \sqrt{\frac{2}{L}} \sin \frac{n \pi}{L}x##, and since the complex conjugate of a real function is just itself,

##\int^{\infty}_{\infty} dx \phi^*_m \phi_n = \frac{2}{L} \int^L_0 \sin \frac{m \pi }{L}x \sin \frac{n \pi}{L}x##.

Using the identity that ##\sin u \sin v = \frac{1}{2} [\cos (u-v) - \cos (u+v)]##

##\frac{2}{L} \int^L_0 \sin \frac{m \pi }{L}x \sin \frac{n \pi}{L}x = \frac{1}{L} \int^L_0 dx [\cos (\frac{(m-n)\pi}{L}x) - \cos (\frac{(m+n)\pi}{L}x)]##

Evaluating this I find that

##\int^{\infty}_{\infty} dx \phi^*_m \phi_n = \frac{1}{\pi} [\frac{\sin ((m-n)\pi)}{m - n} - \frac{\sin ((m+n)\pi)}{m+n}]##

Here I just said that this is zero for ##m \neq n##

The arguments of the sine functions are zero, regardless of whether or not ##m = n##, so what's missing here?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
BOAS said:

Homework Statement



I'm going back through some homework as revision, and came across this problem. It was marked as correct, but now I'm thinking it's unconvincing...

For a particle in an infinite square well, with ##V = 0 , 0 \leq x \leq L##, prove that the stationary eigenstates are mutually orthogonal.

##\int^{\infty}_{\infty} dx \phi^*_m \phi_n = \delta_{m,n}##

Homework Equations

The Attempt at a Solution



The stationary eigenstates are given by ##\phi_n (x) = \sqrt{\frac{2}{L}} \sin \frac{n \pi}{L}x##, and since the complex conjugate of a real function is just itself,

##\int^{\infty}_{\infty} dx \phi^*_m \phi_n = \frac{2}{L} \int^L_0 \sin \frac{m \pi }{L}x \sin \frac{n \pi}{L}x##.

Using the identity that ##\sin u \sin v = \frac{1}{2} [\cos (u-v) - \cos (u+v)]##

##\frac{2}{L} \int^L_0 \sin \frac{m \pi }{L}x \sin \frac{n \pi}{L}x = \frac{1}{L} \int^L_0 dx [\cos (\frac{(m-n)\pi}{L}x) - \cos (\frac{(m+n)\pi}{L}x)]##

Evaluating this I find that

##\int^{\infty}_{\infty} dx \phi^*_m \phi_n = \frac{1}{\pi} [\frac{\sin ((m-n)\pi)}{m - n} - \frac{\sin ((m+n)\pi)}{m+n}]##

Here I just said that this is zero for ##m \neq n##

The arguments of the sine functions are zero, regardless of whether or not ##m = n##, so what's missing here?
When ##m=n##, you can't divide by ##m-n##, as you do in your computation.

Do the integral for ##m=n## separately.
 
Samy_A said:
When ##m=n##, you can't divide by ##m-n##, as you do in your computation.

Do the integral for ##m=n## separately.
Samy_A said:
When ##m=n##, you can't divide by ##m-n##, as you do in your computation.

Do the integral for ##m=n## separately.

Ah, I see.

For the case ##m = n## i'll have an integral of ##sin^2 (\frac{n \pi}{L} x)##

Thank you
 
Thread 'Collision of a bullet on a rod-string system: query'
In this question, I have a question. I am NOT trying to solve it, but it is just a conceptual question. Consider the point on the rod, which connects the string and the rod. My question: just before and after the collision, is ANGULAR momentum CONSERVED about this point? Lets call the point which connects the string and rod as P. Why am I asking this? : it is clear from the scenario that the point of concern, which connects the string and the rod, moves in a circular path due to the string...
Back
Top