Probability of finding a particle given psi squared graph

Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on calculating the probability of finding an electron in a specified width based on its probability density function, psi squared. The user initially struggles with integrating the probability density over a defined range and understanding how to derive psi squared from the graph. They calculate the area of a triangle to find the probability at x = 0 but express confusion about incorporating the position into their calculations. After attempting an analogy from a textbook problem, they arrive at a solution for the probability at x = 0. The conversation highlights the complexities of applying quantum mechanics concepts to practical calculations.
Linus Pauling
Messages
187
Reaction score
0
1.
knight_Figure_39_13.jpg

The figure shows the probability density for an electron that has passed through an experimental apparatus. What is the probability that the electron will land in a 2.40×10−2-mm-wide strip at:

I'm then asked the probability of finding a particle at various spots on the x-axis. We'll go with x = 0.0 here.




2. P(x)*delta(x) = psi2*delta(x)



3. The big triangle has area 0.5(2mm)(0.5) = 0.5mm2. I then integrated from -1.2*10-2 to +1.2*10-2 because that width is centered around the 0.0 point of interest. I then evaluated the solution, 0.5x, at the boundaries, obtaining an answer of 0.012... although I don't think I'm going about this quite right.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I know that P will be psi(x) squared multiplied about the length L given in the problem. However, from the graph I can get the integral of psi squared, which is simply the area under the curve. How do I compute psi squared itself?
 
I know this is probably simple but I just don't see it. I don't see how to get an equation that's a function of x that I can plug my x values into. For example, when it asks me for the probability at x=o over a length L, I know that the integral of psi squared is just (1/2)bh = 0.5, but it can't be that I just multiply that by L because the position x didn't play a role...
 
Really lost here...

I just tried solving it using a problem in my book as an analogy. For the probability at x = 0:

I said that the equation describing one half of the "big triangle" is 0.50(1-x/1nm), which is psi squared. Solving with x = zero then multiplying by two to account for the otehr half of the triangle, I get 0.5*2 = 1, which I multiplied by 2.4*10^-2 = 0.024

?
 
Nevermind got em
 
Thread 'Correct statement about size of wire to produce larger extension'
The answer is (B) but I don't really understand why. Based on formula of Young Modulus: $$x=\frac{FL}{AE}$$ The second wire made of the same material so it means they have same Young Modulus. Larger extension means larger value of ##x## so to get larger value of ##x## we can increase ##F## and ##L## and decrease ##A## I am not sure whether there is change in ##F## for first and second wire so I will just assume ##F## does not change. It leaves (B) and (C) as possible options so why is (C)...

Similar threads

Replies
28
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
9
Views
4K