Quantum Mechanics: Choose an acceptable bound state function

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on identifying an acceptable wave function for a particle in a bound state, with four options provided. Criteria for acceptable wave functions include going to zero at infinity and being smooth and continuous. The participants debate the validity of options 1 and 3, arguing that both meet the criteria for bound states, while option 4 is disqualified due to its abrupt change. The conversation highlights that while a wave function typically approaches zero at infinity, there are exceptions that can still be square integrable. Ultimately, both options 1 and 3 are considered valid solutions to the problem.
511mev
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
1. Which of the following is an allowed wave function for a particle in a bound state? N is
a constant and α, β>0.
1) Ψ=N e-α r
2) Ψ=N(1-e-α r)
3) Ψ=Ne-α x e-β(x2+y2+z2)
4) Ψ=Non-zero constant if r<R , Ψ=0 if r>R

Only one is correct.




2. What are the criteria for acceptable bound state wave functions?




3. I did assume that one of the criteria is that the wave function must go to zero at infinity. To show this, I took the limits as r goes to infinity and, for the function given in 3, as x,y,z, go to positive and negative infinty. I got that all are zero at infinity except 2.
Another requirement is that the function be smooth and continuous. Since 4 has an abrupt change, i.e., its derivative is infinite at R, then it is not smooth.
That leaves 1 and 3. What additional property am I forgetting?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It seems to me the problem is wrong in claiming only one answer is correct. The wave functions in (1) and (3) are solutions to, respectively, the hydrogen atom and the simple harmonic oscillator, for the appropriate choices of α and β.
 
511mev said:
[...] I did assume that one of the criteria is that the wave function must go to zero at infinity. [...]

This is wrong. The requirement is being a member of a properly chosen L^2.
 
Are you saying that my assertion that a bound state wave function go to zero at infinity is incorrect? Would not a member of a well chosen L^2 have this property if it were to represent a bound state?
 
That is what I thought. I am attempting to help a student with this problem on Cramster. He claims that there is only one answer. I cannot formulate a proof, though.
 
I'm saying that there are wavefunctions which don't go to 0 when approaching infinity, but are still square integrable. But such <oddities> can be the limits of convergent sequences of <good> wavefunctions (=those who have the particular infinity behavior). In the language of functional analysis, S(R) is a proper subset of L^2(R) and dense everywhere in it.

Anyways, regarding the problem itself, as unveiled above, both (1) & (3) are valid solutions to your problem.
 
Thread 'Help with Time-Independent Perturbation Theory "Good" States Proof'
(Disclaimer: this is not a HW question. I am self-studying, and this felt like the type of question I've seen in this forum. If there is somewhere better for me to share this doubt, please let me know and I'll transfer it right away.) I am currently reviewing Chapter 7 of Introduction to QM by Griffiths. I have been stuck for an hour or so trying to understand the last paragraph of this proof (pls check the attached file). It claims that we can express Ψ_{γ}(0) as a linear combination of...
Back
Top