Show that E must exceed ##V_{min}##

  • Thread starter Thread starter gfd43tg
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the Schrödinger equation in quantum mechanics, specifically addressing the conditions under which the energy \( E \) must exceed the minimum potential \( V_{min} \) for a wave function \( \psi \) to be normalizable. Participants explore the implications of assuming \( E < V_{min} \) and its effects on the behavior of the wave function.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the algebraic manipulation of the Schrödinger equation and the implications of a positive second derivative of \( \psi \). Questions arise about the normalization of the wave function and the relationship between the signs of \( \psi \) and its second derivative. Some participants suggest examining the behavior of solutions to the differential equation under different assumptions about \( E \) and \( V \).

Discussion Status

The discussion is progressing with participants actively engaging in clarifying concepts and exploring the consequences of their assumptions. Some guidance has been provided regarding the relationship between the signs of \( \psi \) and its second derivative, leading to insights about the non-normalizability of the wave function when \( E < V_{min} \).

Contextual Notes

Participants note the lack of specific information about the potential function \( V(x) \), which complicates the integration process for normalization. The discussion also acknowledges standard assumptions about the continuity and differentiability of \( \psi \) in quantum mechanics.

gfd43tg
Gold Member
Messages
949
Reaction score
48

Homework Statement


upload_2015-2-28_16-29-51.png


Homework Equations


Equation 2.5
$$ - \frac {\hbar^{2}}{2m} \frac {d^{2} \psi}{dx^{2}} + V \psi = E \psi $$

Equation 1.20
$$ \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \mid \Psi (x,t) \mid^{2} dx = 1 $$

The Attempt at a Solution


So it is easy enough to do the algebra to show that equation 2.5 can be rewritten as the one in the problem statement.

So if I assume ##E < V_{min}##, then ##\frac {d^{2} \psi}{dx^{2}}## will be positive. If I have a positive second derivative, how do I know that ##\psi## will also be positive?

For a function to be normalized

$$ \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \mid \Psi (x,t) \mid^{2} = 1 $$

But I have not figured out how to connect the dots to know how the hint will mean that this function cannot be normalized (i.e. the integral cannot be true).
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Just solve the differential equation :) Assume E is smaller than every possible value of V, then you have a differential equation of the form

$$f''=af$$

where a is a positive number. While previously a was negative the solution was a complex exponential (periodic) and now the solutions are real exponentials. Try to normalize that.

edit: I know you are not solving the exact same equation, since V is a function of x, but the behavior should be similar. When the coefficient is positive you have exponential, when it is negative you have complex exponential.
 
Last edited:
Alrighty then, I will solve the differential equation

$$ \frac {d^{2} \psi}{dx^{2}} - \frac {2m}{\hbar^{2}} \Big (V(x) - E \Big ) \psi = 0 $$
$$ r^{2} - \frac {2m}{\hbar^{2}} \Big (V(x) - E \Big ) = 0 $$
Therefore, ##r_{1} = \sqrt { \frac {2m(V-E)}{\hbar^{2}}}## and ##r_{2} = - \sqrt { \frac {2m(V-E)}{\hbar^{2}}}##
So the solution to the differential equation is
$$ \psi = c_{1}e^{\sqrt { \frac {2m(V-E)}{\hbar^{2}}}} + c_{2}e^{- \sqrt { \frac {2m(V-E)}{\hbar^{2}}}} $$

To normalize, I use equation 1.20
$$ \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \mid c_{1}e^{\sqrt { \frac {2m(V-E)}{\hbar^{2}}}} + c_{2}e^{- \sqrt { \frac {2m(V-E)}{\hbar^{2}}}} \mid^{2} dx $$

Well, I don't exactly know what ##V(x)## is, so I can't really integrate this.
 
Last edited:
Maylis said:
So if I assume ##E < V_{min}##, then ##\frac {d^{2} \psi}{dx^{2}}## will be positive.
That's not true. Read the hint again. :wink:

If I have a positive second derivative, how do I know that ##\psi## will also be positive?
Wait... let's take a little detour...

Let ##z## be a real variable, and let ##\alpha## be a real constant. If I tell you that ##\alpha z > 0##, and that ##\alpha## is positive, what can you tell me about the sign of ##z##? Similarly, if I told you that ##\alpha## is negative, what could you tell me about the sign of ##z## in that case?

Then look at your Schrödinger equation again. I think you've already figured out that ##(V-E)>0##, so... can you now see that ##\psi## and its 2nd derivative must have the same sign? (If that's not obvious, just consider the cases ##\psi>0## and ##\psi<0## separately.)

For a function to be normalized
$$ \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \mid \Psi (x,t) \mid^{2} = 1 $$
But I have not figured out how to connect the dots to know how the hint will mean that this function cannot be normalized (i.e. the integral cannot be true).
Consider the case where ##\psi>0## and ##d^2\psi/dx^2 > 0##. What, therefore, do you know about the curve ##\psi(x)## in the neighbourhood of any (arbitrary) point ##x##.

Hint: remember the stuff about concave-up, and concave-down in relation to 2nd derivatives? If a function ##\psi(x)## is positive for all ##x##, and its graph is concave-up everywhere, what can you deduce about the behaviour of ##\psi(x)## as ##x \to \pm\infty## ?
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: gfd43tg
Okay, now I understand the hint, so really since ##V - E## is positive, then the second derivative will of course have the same sign as ##\psi##. And with that said, then ##\psi(x) \rightarrow \pm \infty## as ##x \rightarrow \pm \infty##, assuming ##\psi(x) < 0## or ##\psi(x) > 0##. Then of course ##\mid \psi(x) \mid^{2}## will also approach infinity. Thus it is not normalizable.
 
That's the idea.

(Strictly speaking, one must also assume that ##\psi(x)## is continuous -- with a well-behaved 1st derivative. But that's a standard assumption when working with the Schrödinger eqn in QM.)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
4K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
3K