Perturbation theory infinite well

AI Thread Summary
In the discussion about perturbation theory in an infinite well, the user initially calculated the total energy using the time-independent Schrödinger equation and found that the integral of the product of wave functions resulted in zero, suggesting that a small potential does not affect the total energy. However, another participant pointed out that the integral should yield a positive result, prompting a review of the integration process. Upon reevaluation, the user realized they had mistakenly applied the product rule instead of integration by parts. They acknowledged their error and expressed gratitude for the assistance. The conversation highlights the importance of careful integration techniques in quantum mechanics calculations.
Dammes
Messages
14
Reaction score
0
in the infinite well with small potential shown in the attachment.
I calculated the total energy by using the time independent Schrodinger equation and adding the correction energy to the equation of the slope k=(Vo/L)x.

E=h^2/8mL^2 +∫ ψkψ dx

ψ=√(2/L) sin⁡(∏/L x)

when integrating ∫ ψkψ dx between 0 and L
I got Zero, ∫ ψkψ dx=0
∴ total energy=h^2/8mL^2 +0

so what i don't understand is when adding a small potential it doesn't affect the total energy of the system? that is what it shows when i integrated it.
 

Attachments

  • 1-D_Box.jpg
    1-D_Box.jpg
    5.1 KB · Views: 498
Physics news on Phys.org
Dammes said:
i
when integrating ∫ ψkψ dx between 0 and L
I got Zero, ∫ ψkψ dx=0

I don't believe that integral is zero. Check your work to see if you might have made a mistake.
 
i have looked over and did it again, i still get zero.
could you please try out the integral
∫ ψkψ dx

where ψ=√(2/L) sin⁡((∏/L) x)
and
k=(Vo/L)x
 
Maybe you can show some of the steps of how you integrated \int_0^L sin^2(\pi x/L)\; x \;dx. Note that the integrand is positive throughout the range of integration. So, it's got to yield a positive result.
 
the pictures in the attachment shows some of my working
 

Attachments

  • Photo on 10-7-12 at 6.37 PM.jpg
    Photo on 10-7-12 at 6.37 PM.jpg
    32.3 KB · Views: 527
  • Photo on 10-7-12 at 6.38 PM #2.jpg
    Photo on 10-7-12 at 6.38 PM #2.jpg
    31.9 KB · Views: 530
looking over it again i see where i went wrong, i used integration in the product rule. sorry for wasting your time and thank you very much!
 
sorry, please don't read my previous comment. i see where i acutely went wrong, i have to use integration by parts. i have a problem of mixing up integration and differentiation.
hope I am correct this time
sorry and thank you
 
No need to be sorry. Glad to be of help.
 
Back
Top