Solutions of of the time-independent Schrodinger eq.

Join the discussion
Registration is free. Start your own thread to ask a follow-up.
9 replies · 3K views
xago
Messages
60
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Supposed that [tex]\psi[/tex]1 and [tex]\psi[/tex]2 are two different solutions of the TISE with the same energy E.

a) show that [tex]\psi[/tex]1 + [tex]\psi[/tex]2 is also a solution with energy E.
b) show that c*[tex]\psi[/tex]1 is also a solution with energy E.

Homework Equations



TISE: (-[tex]\hbar[/tex]/2m)*[tex]\nabla[/tex]^2*[tex]\psi[/tex](r) +V(r)*[tex]\psi[/tex](r) = E*[tex]\psi[/tex](r)

The Attempt at a Solution



My first thought was to solve by substitution but since it doesn't give us the 2 solutions as a function I can't do that. Should I just find 2 different solutions and plug them into the TISE to see if they satisfy? I feel I am missing a rule or a postulate to solve this with.

P.S. I am very new to QM, be gentle
 
Physics news on Phys.org
xago said:

Homework Statement



Supposed that [tex]\psi[/tex]1 and [tex]\psi[/tex]2 are two different solutions of the TISE with the same energy E.

a) show that [tex]\psi[/tex]1 + [tex]\psi[/tex]2 is also a solution with energy E.
b) show that c*[tex]\psi[/tex]1 is also a solution with energy E.

Homework Equations



TISE: (-[tex]\hbar[/tex]/2m)*[tex]\nabla[/tex]^2*[tex]\psi[/tex](r) +V(r)*[tex]\psi[/tex](r) = E*[tex]\psi[/tex](r)

The Attempt at a Solution



My first thought was to solve by substitution but since it doesn't give us the 2 solutions as a function I can't do that. Should I just find 2 different solutions and plug them into the TISE to see if they satisfy? I feel I am missing a rule or a postulate to solve this with.

P.S. I am very new to QM, be gentle

If [tex]\psi_1[/tex] is a solution of the TISE with energy E, what must

[tex]\left(-\frac{\hbar}{2m}\nabla^2 + V(r) \right) \psi_1(r)[/tex]

equal? You don't need to know the functional form of [tex]\psi_1(r)[/tex] to answer this.
 
[tex]\left(-\frac{\hbar}{2m}\nabla^2 + V(r) \right) \psi_1(r)[/tex] = E*[tex]\psi[/tex]1

I don't see what this proves though, isn't the equation just re-arranged?
 
xago said:
[tex]\left(-\frac{\hbar}{2m}\nabla^2 + V(r) \right) \psi_1(r)[/tex] = E*[tex]\psi[/tex]1

I don't see what this proves though, isn't the equation just re-arranged?

Well it's reiterating what information you're given. The problem wants you to compute

[tex]\left(-\frac{\hbar}{2m}\nabla^2 + V(r) \right) (\psi_1(r)+\psi_2(r))[/tex]

and

[tex]\left(-\frac{\hbar}{2m}\nabla^2 + V(r) \right) ( c \psi_1(r)).[/tex]
 
[tex]\left(-\frac{\hbar}{2m}\nabla^2 + V(r) \right) \psi_1(r) = E\psi_1(r)[/tex]
[tex]\left(-\frac{\hbar}{2m}\nabla^2 + V(r) \right) \psi_2(r) = E\psi_2(r)[/tex]

therefore [tex]\left(-\frac{\hbar}{2m}\nabla^2 + V(r) \right) (\psi_1(r)+\psi_2(r)) = E(\psi_1(r)+\psi_2(r)) ?[/tex]

It just doesn't feel like I'm proving anything.

Edit*Perhaps I just have to show that E[f(x)] is a linear operator? (where f(x) would be [tex]\psi[/tex])
 
Last edited:
xago said:
[tex]\left(-\frac{\hbar}{2m}\nabla^2 + V(r) \right) \psi_1(r) = E\psi_1(r)[/tex]
[tex]\left(-\frac{\hbar}{2m}\nabla^2 + V(r) \right) \psi_2(r) = E\psi_2(r)[/tex]

therefore [tex]\left(-\frac{\hbar}{2m}\nabla^2 + V(r) \right) (\psi_1(r)+\psi_2(r)) = E(\psi_1(r)+\psi_2(r)) ?[/tex]

It just doesn't feel like I'm proving anything.

It's not a really deep problem. You're just verifying that the wave equation is linear.

Edit*Perhaps I just have to show that E[f(x)] is a linear operator? (where f(x) would be [tex]\psi[/tex])

E is a scalar, I don't think you'd be expected to prove that multiplication by a scalar is a linear operation.
 
xago said:
[tex]\left(-\frac{\hbar}{2m}\nabla^2 + V(r) \right) \psi_1(r) = E\psi_1(r)[/tex]
[tex]\left(-\frac{\hbar}{2m}\nabla^2 + V(r) \right) \psi_2(r) = E\psi_2(r)[/tex]

therefore [tex]\left(-\frac{\hbar}{2m}\nabla^2 + V(r) \right) (\psi_1(r)+\psi_2(r)) = E(\psi_1(r)+\psi_2(r)) ?[/tex]

It just doesn't feel like I'm proving anything.
You're supposed to show how what's after "therefore" follows from the first two lines.
 
[tex] \left[\left(-\frac{\hbar}{2m}\nabla^2 + V(r) \right) \psi_1(r) = E\psi_1(r)\right]+[/tex] [tex] \left[\left(-\frac{\hbar}{2m}\nabla^2 + V(r) \right) \psi_2(r) = E\psi_2(r)\right][/tex]
[tex] \left(-\frac{\hbar}{2m}\nabla^2 + V(r) \right) \left(\psi_1(r)+\psi_2(r)\right) = E\psi_1(r) + E\psi_2(r)[/tex]
Since they both have the same E, it can be factored out:
[tex] =\left(-\frac{\hbar}{2m}\nabla^2 + V(r) \right) \left(\psi_1(r)+\psi_2(r)\right) = E\left(\psi_1(r) + \psi_2(r)\right)[/tex]

??
 
Last edited:
It's clear you understand conceptually what's going on, but you want to write it down in a clear, organized way. A lot of students have trouble writing down a proof because it seems so obvious.

To show [itex]\psi_1(\vec{r})+\psi_2(\vec{r})[/itex] is a solution means to show that

[tex]\left[-\frac{\hbar}{2m}\nabla^2 + V(\vec{r}) \right] \left(\psi_1(\vec{r})+\psi_2(\vec{r})\right) = E(\psi_1(\vec{r})+\psi_2(\vec{r}))[/tex]

For problems like this, it's good to start with one side of the equation, apply concepts one at a time, and show what you get after each step until you end up at the other side of the equation.

[tex]\begin{align*}<br /> \left[-\frac{\hbar}{2m}\nabla^2 + V(r) \right] \left(\psi_1(r)+\psi_2(r)\right) &= \cdots \\<br /> & = \cdots \\<br /> && \vdots \\<br /> &= E(\psi_1(\vec{r})+\psi_2(\vec{r}))<br /> \end{align*}[/tex]

In the first step, you'd use the linearity of

[tex]\left[-\frac{\hbar}{2m}\nabla^2 + V(r) \right][/tex]

In the next step, you'd use the fact that [itex]\psi_1[/itex] and [itex]\psi_2[/itex] are solutions with energy E, and so on.