Proving E must exceed the min potential

  • Thread starter Thread starter emob2p
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Potential
AI Thread Summary
To prove that the energy E must exceed the minimum potential V(x) for all normalizable solutions to the Schrödinger equation, start with the time-independent Schrödinger equation Hφ = Eφ, where H includes the kinetic and potential energy terms. By multiplying both sides by the complex conjugate of the wavefunction, φ*, and utilizing the properties of the momentum operator, a contradiction can be shown if E is less than the minimum of V. Specifically, if E < V, the wavefunction's second derivative will indicate a local minimum, leading to non-normalizable solutions as the wavefunction approaches infinity. Thus, for normalizable solutions, E must indeed be greater than the minimum potential. This reasoning confirms the requirement for E to exceed V(x).
emob2p
Messages
56
Reaction score
1
I've come across Problem 2.2 out of Griffiths' Intro to Quantum book second edition. The problem says to show that E must exceed the minimum value of V(x) for all normalizable solutions to the Schroed. eq. Naturally I started with the normalization condition: int(|phi|^2)=1 and started taking derivatives on this. However, I cannot arrive at a contradiction. Any thoughts? Or any other ways to show the same result? Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
hi, emob2p.

I think I would start from the time independent schroedinger equation, H\phi=E\phi, where H is the Hamiltonian, \phi the wavefunction. Normally, H=p^2/(2m)+V(x), where p is the momentum operator. First multiply both sides with \phi^{*}, then note that p is hermitian (and the \phi^{*}p^{2}\phi term can be made into the square of modulus of a function), and then compare both sides. You may arrive at a contradiction if E is smaller than the minimum of V.
 
Last edited:
Here's my reasoning. Solve for ψ'' as Griffiths suggests. Now notice that if E<V, then ψ>0 and ψ''>0, or ψ<0 and ψ''<0. From calculus recall that if the second derivative is positive, then you have a local minimum. Therefore as x→∞ so does ψ→∞. In order to be normalizable, ψ must go to 0. So V must be greater than E so that ψ'' and ψ have different signs.
 
I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...
Back
Top