Solving 3D Schrodinger Equation - Explaining 1/X(x) Term

  • Thread starter Thread starter Master J
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    3d Schrödinger
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on solving the 3D time-independent Schrödinger equation using a separable solution of the form Phi = X(x)Y(y)Z(z). The confusion arises from the term 1/X(x) in the Hamiltonian, which is clarified by noting that it results from dividing through by the product XYZ to isolate the equations. The potential considered is an infinite square well, where V(x,y,z) is zero within certain bounds and infinite outside. It is emphasized that separation of variables is not universally applicable and works only for specific potentials. The thread ultimately seeks a clearer derivation of the process from the beginning.
Master J
Messages
219
Reaction score
0
The schrodinger equation in 3D (time independent).

Letting Phi = X(x).Y(y).Z(z), and solving as a PDE...

The equation looks pretty much the same except there is a separate Hamiltonian for each of the Cartesian coordinates x y z. However, the 1/X(x) term etc. really confuses me, I don't know where it comes from. Could someone perhaps explain??

ie. H_x = [-(h^2)/2m].[1/X(x)].[(d^2)X(x)/d(X(x))^2] + V(x)
^^^^

where h is representing h-bar, and d the partial derivative.

Cheers guys!:biggrin:
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It occurs because you divide through by 1/XYZ to isolate the equations.

But note that using a separation in Cartesian coordinates is not always a viable solution, and will only work for some potentials.
 
Can you perhaps outline the derivation from the start? It's just clearing it up for me...
 
It goes something like assume the potential is an infinite square potential

V(x,y,z) = \left(\begin{array}{cc}0 if x,y,z < a \\ \infty else

We can assume a separable solution \Psi (x,y,z) = X(x)Y(y)Z(z)

\frac{-\hbar^2}{2m} [Y(y)Z(z) \frac{d^2 X}{dx^2}+X(x)Z(z) \frac{d^2 Y}{dy^2}+X(x)Y(y) \frac{d^2 Z}{dz^2}] + V(x,y,z)XYZ = E(XYZ)

Then just divide everything by 1/XYZ.
 
I am slowly going through the book 'What Is a Quantum Field Theory?' by Michel Talagrand. I came across the following quote: One does not" prove” the basic principles of Quantum Mechanics. The ultimate test for a model is the agreement of its predictions with experiments. Although it may seem trite, it does fit in with my modelling view of QM. The more I think about it, the more I believe it could be saying something quite profound. For example, precisely what is the justification of...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K