Properties of derivatives of a wavefunction?

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the properties of derivatives of a wavefunction in quantum mechanics, specifically regarding boundary conditions. The integral involving the derivatives of the wavefunction is asserted to equal zero, raising questions about the behavior of these derivatives at infinity. It is emphasized that while Griffiths states the wavefunction should approach zero at the boundaries, he does not explicitly address the behavior of its derivatives. The continuity of the wavefunction's derivative at the boundary implies it should also approach zero smoothly. Understanding these properties is crucial for solving quantum mechanics problems, particularly in scenarios like an infinite potential well.
Torboll1
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Hi!

I'm currently re-reading Griffiths introductory QM book and plan to do most of the exercises. I got stuck on one problem and had to look for some hints and found two solutions that both claim that:

\int_{-\infty} ^{\infty} \frac{\partial }{\partial x}\left[ \frac{\partial \Psi ^{*}}{\partial x} \frac{\partial \Psi}{\partial x} - \Psi ^{*} \frac{\partial ^2 \Psi }{\partial x^2} \right] dx = 0 .

What Griffiths really push is that the wave function approaches zero at the boundaries but he states nothing about the derivatives (other than that they need be continuous). Can someone help me understand this?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The derivative of a wavefunction out to infinity should approach zero as well. This is the same as in, say, an infinite well, where the wavefunction must be zero at the well wall. For the derivative of the wavefunction to also be continuous at the boundary, it must approach zero smoothly.
 
Time reversal invariant Hamiltonians must satisfy ##[H,\Theta]=0## where ##\Theta## is time reversal operator. However, in some texts (for example see Many-body Quantum Theory in Condensed Matter Physics an introduction, HENRIK BRUUS and KARSTEN FLENSBERG, Corrected version: 14 January 2016, section 7.1.4) the time reversal invariant condition is introduced as ##H=H^*##. How these two conditions are identical?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
2K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K