Quantum mechanics - normalisation of wavefunction

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the normalization of a wavefunction for a one-dimensional harmonic oscillator in quantum mechanics. The original poster presents a wavefunction and attempts to determine the normalization constant.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the integral used for normalization and the derivation of the normalization constant C. There are questions about the inclusion of a phase factor in the solution and whether it is necessary.

Discussion Status

The discussion is active, with participants providing insights and questioning the assumptions made regarding the phase factor in the wavefunction. Some participants express uncertainty about the necessity of the phase factor, while others clarify the mathematical steps involved in the normalization process.

Contextual Notes

There is mention of potential confusion regarding the constants involved in the normalization and the implications of including a phase factor in the wavefunction. The participants also note the significance of the stationary state in the context of the harmonic oscillator.

tigger88
Messages
17
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Normalise the wavefunction:
\Psi(x) = C exp(-mwx^{2}/(2h))
for the 1-D harmonic oscillator.


Homework Equations



\int\Psi*\Psidx = 1

The Attempt at a Solution


I used the following integral from -inf to inf:
¦C¦^2\intexp(-ax^2)dx = srqt(pi/a) where a = const. >0
where a = mw/h

I solved for C and got C = ((mw/h pi)^(1/4) exp(i\theta)

I just want to check if it's the right answer as there's a follow-on question and it looks quite awkward.

Thanks for any help!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
C = (mw/h pi)^(1/4), it's not clear how you're getting an additional exp(i * theta)
 
I got the i*theta bit from some old notes... the lecturer seemed to wap it on the end so that both real and imaginary components (if there are any) of the normalisation factor are included. I don't entirely understand it...

Thanks very much!
 
tigger88 said:
I used the following integral from -inf to inf:
¦C¦^2\intexp(-ax^2)dx = srqt(pi/a) where a = const. >0
where a = mw/h

I solved for C and got C = ((mw/h pi)^(1/4) exp(i\theta)

Surely you mean

|C|^2\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} e^{-ax^2}dx=|C|^2\sqrt{\frac{\pi}{a}}

right?

And shouldn't you have a=\frac{m\omega}{2\hbar}, leaving you with C=\left(\frac{m\omega}{2\hbar \pi}\right)^{1/4}e^{i\theta}?

In any case, you should recall that a wavefunction's overall phase factor has no physical effect, and so you are free to choose any particular value of \theta you want. (I'd choose \theta=0 for obvious reasons!)
 
I thought that when I squared the wavefunction (or multiplied by the complex conjugate, which in this case would be synonymous with squaring) the exponential would do this:
exp(-2mwx^2/(2h)) which would simplify to exp(-mwx^2/h).
Is this not the case?
 
You're right tigger88, it does simplify to e^{-mwx^2/h} in the integrand which gives you a value of C=\left(\frac{m\omega}{\hbar \pi}\right)^{1/4}

I'm not even sure you have to put a phase since the wave function is a stationary state (ground state of harmonic oscillator wave function).
 
Last edited:
tigger88 said:
I thought that when I squared the wavefunction (or multiplied by the complex conjugate, which in this case would be synonymous with squaring) the exponential would do this:
exp(-2mwx^2/(2h)) which would simplify to exp(-mwx^2/h).
Is this not the case?

Yes, my mistake...oops!:blushing:
 
Feldoh said:
I'm not even sure you have a phase since the wave function is a stationary state (ground state of harmonic oscillator wave function).

I'm not sure what you mean by this. An overall phase factor is an unobservable quantity. Choosing any value of \theta will produce exactly the same physics.
 
gabbagabbahey said:
I'm not sure what you mean by this. An overall phase factor is an unobservable quantity. Choosing any value of \theta will produce exactly the same physics.

You said it yourself, it doesn't matter, we don't really need to tack it on in this case since it doesn't change anything.
 

Similar threads

Replies
46
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
3K