Particle in Ring: Solving Standing Wave

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter maverick_76
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Particle Ring
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around solving the problem of a particle bound to a ring of radius R, specifically focusing on the formulation of standing and running waves. Participants explore the mathematical representation of the wave function and the implications of boundary conditions on the coefficients involved.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents the wave function as ψ(x) = Asin(kx) + Bcos(kx) and questions whether the coefficient B must be zero due to periodicity.
  • Another participant argues that there is no reason to set B to zero, explaining that both A and B can take on values that satisfy the normalization condition A² + B² = (1/π).
  • A later reply emphasizes that any values for A and B that satisfy A² + B² = 0 provide a solution, indicating an infinite family of solutions exists for each k.
  • One participant expresses confusion regarding the relationship between k and the normalization condition, questioning how A² + B² could equal 0 if k is defined as n, where n = 1, 2, 3...
  • Another participant suggests that using exponential functions simplifies finding energy eigenstates and notes the degeneracy of energy eigenvalues.
  • Further elaboration on the Hamiltonian and eigenvalue equations is provided, detailing the periodicity and the complete set of eigenstates derived from Fourier series.
  • A participant mentions a conversation with their professor, who supports the idea that using exponentials is clearer and easier for tackling the problem.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the necessity of setting B to zero and the implications of the normalization condition. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the individual constraints on A and B, as well as the interpretation of the normalization condition.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference boundary conditions and the Schrödinger equation, but there are unresolved assumptions regarding the implications of periodicity and the nature of the solutions.

maverick_76
Messages
19
Reaction score
1
So I am working on the problem of the particle bound to a ring of radius R. I am trying to solve it two ways, as a standing wave and as a running wave. I'm stuck right now solving for the standing wave. So far I have:

ψ(x)=Asin(kx) + Bcos(kx)

I know that it is periodic from 0 to 2π so if I integrate the modulus of ψ(x) squared I can set it equal to 1 and solve for A & B.

So my question is this, would the B value be zero? Since it is periodic around the ring, would the only way to make cos(kx) zero be to make coefficient B zero?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
maverick_76 said:
So my question is this, would the B value be zero?

No, there's no reason to set B to zero.

Assuming ##x## here is the angle around the circle, your constraints are:

* ##\psi(0) = \psi(2 \pi)##
* ##\frac{d}{dx}\psi(0) = \frac{d}{dx}\psi(2 \pi)##
* ##\psi(x)## should solve the Schrödinger equation

If you impose these constraints you will find:
* k can only take on certain discrete values
* ##A^2 + B^2## must equal a certain value, but ##A## and ##B## are not individually constrained

Why aren't ##A## and ##B## constrained invididually? This corresponds to the fact that if you have a solution ##\psi(x)## and then rotate it around the circle by any angle, you get another solution. So you have a bunch of solutions, all of which are linear combinations of ##\sin(kx)## and ##\cos(kx)##.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: maverick_76
The_Duck said:
No, there's no reason to set B to zero.

Assuming ##x## here is the angle around the circle, your constraints are:

* ##\psi(0) = \psi(2 \pi)##
* ##\frac{d}{dx}\psi(0) = \frac{d}{dx}\psi(2 \pi)##
* ##\psi(x)## should solve the Schrödinger equation

If you impose these constraints you will find:
* k can only take on certain discrete values
* ##A^2 + B^2## must equal a certain value, but ##A## and ##B## are not individually constrained

Why aren't ##A## and ##B## constrained invididually? This corresponds to the fact that if you have a solution ##\psi(x)## and then rotate it around the circle by any angle, you get another solution. So you have a bunch of solutions, all of which are linear combinations of ##\sin(kx)## and ##\cos(kx)##.

Okay so solving the integral of modulus psi squared, I find

A^2 + B^2 = (1/pi)

How exactly do I find A & B values with this, If I can't assume one is zero? I know:

psi(0) = B = psi(2pi)
&
psi'(0) = Ak = psi'(2pi)

but I am rusty here, can I use this info to solve for A & B?
 
Any values for ##A## and ##B## that satisfy ##A^2 + B^2 = 0## give a solution. For each ##k## there is an infinite family of solutions. You can think of them all as linear combinations of the "basic" solutions ##\sin(kx)## and ##\cos(kx)##.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: maverick_76
How is that possible? If k=n, n=1,2,3... then it has to equal 1/sqrt(pi) right?

A^2 + B^2 = 1/sqrt(pi) is what I mean, how can it equal 0?
 
It's much easier to find the energy eigenstates in terms of exponential rather than cos and sin functions. The reason that you have this "ambiguity" is that the energy eigenvalues are degenerate.

The Hamiltonian in position representation is
$$\hat{H}=-\frac{\hbar^2}{2m R^2} \partial_{\varphi}^2.$$
The eigenvalue equation reads
$$\hat{H} u_E(\varphi)=E u_E(\varphi) \; \Rightarrow \; \partial_{\varphi}^2 u_E(\varphi)=-{2m R^2 E}{\hbar^2}u_E(\varphi)=-\alpha^2 u_E(\varphi).$$
The appropriate square integrable solutions on ##L^2([0,2 \pi])## are
$$u_E(\varphi)=A \exp(\mathrm{i} \alpha \varphi).$$
Since the function must be periodic with period ##2 \pi## you have
$$\alpha=\alpha_k:=2 \pi k, \quad k \in \mathbb{Z}.$$
The corresponding energy eigenvalues are
$$E_k=\frac{\hbar^2 \alpha^2}{2m R^2}=\frac{\hbar^2}{2mR^2} (2 \pi k)^2.$$
As you see, except for the ground state for ##k=0## all energy eigenstates are degenerate, because for any ##k## also ##-k## gives the same energy.

From the theory of Fourier series, we know the above set of eigenstates
$$u_k(\varphi)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2 \pi}} \exp(\mathrm{i} \alpha_k \varphi).$$
are complete, and thus this is the complete solution of the energy-eigenvalue problem. It's also easy to verify that the Hamiltonian is really self-adjoint.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: maverick_76
vanhees71 said:
It's much easier to find the energy eigenstates in terms of exponential rather than cos and sin functions. The reason that you have this "ambiguity" is that the energy eigenvalues are degenerate.

The Hamiltonian in position representation is
$$\hat{H}=-\frac{\hbar^2}{2m R^2} \partial_{\varphi}^2.$$
The eigenvalue equation reads
$$\hat{H} u_E(\varphi)=E u_E(\varphi) \; \Rightarrow \; \partial_{\varphi}^2 u_E(\varphi)=-{2m R^2 E}{\hbar^2}u_E(\varphi)=-\alpha^2 u_E(\varphi).$$
The appropriate square integrable solutions on ##L^2([0,2 \pi])## are
$$u_E(\varphi)=A \exp(\mathrm{i} \alpha \varphi).$$
Since the function must be periodic with period ##2 \pi## you have
$$\alpha=\alpha_k:=2 \pi k, \quad k \in \mathbb{Z}.$$
The corresponding energy eigenvalues are
$$E_k=\frac{\hbar^2 \alpha^2}{2m R^2}=\frac{\hbar^2}{2mR^2} (2 \pi k)^2.$$
As you see, except for the ground state for ##k=0## all energy eigenstates are degenerate, because for any ##k## also ##-k## gives the same energy.

From the theory of Fourier series, we know the above set of eigenstates
$$u_k(\varphi)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2 \pi}} \exp(\mathrm{i} \alpha_k \varphi).$$
are complete, and thus this is the complete solution of the energy-eigenvalue problem. It's also easy to verify that the Hamiltonian is really self-adjoint.

Thank you, I was talking with my professor this morning and he said the same thing that tackling the problem with exponentials is much easier than using trig functions. The problem also is much clearer to understand this way too.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
9K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K