Solving the Shroedinger equation for a harmonic oscillator potential

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the methods for solving the Schrödinger equation for a harmonic oscillator potential, particularly focusing on the use of power series and the implications of separating the exponential damping term in the wave function. Participants explore the reasoning behind Griffith's approach and the resulting recursion relations.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant describes Griffith's method of rewriting the Schrödinger equation and the subsequent approximation at large ε, leading to the separation of the exponential term in the wave function.
  • Another participant suggests that Griffith's approach is intended to motivate the use of power series in solving differential equations.
  • A participant attempts to derive a recursion formula by assuming a power series for ψ without separating the exponential term, resulting in a different recursion relation.
  • It is noted that the recursion relation derived from the unseparated form is three-term, which complicates finding polynomial solutions, contrasting with the two-term relation obtained by separating the exponential.
  • One participant emphasizes the necessity of the exponential term for maintaining the normalizability of the wave function as ε approaches infinity.
  • Another participant draws a parallel to similar approaches found in the solutions for the hydrogen atom.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the necessity and implications of separating the exponential term in the wave function. There is no consensus on the best approach to take, as some advocate for Griffith's method while others present alternative perspectives.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights the complexity of recursion relations and the importance of normalizability in quantum mechanics, but does not resolve the differences in approach or the implications of the derived formulas.

user3
Messages
59
Reaction score
0
Hello,

I have been studying Introduction to Quantum Mechanics by Griffith and in a section he solves the Schrödinger equation for a harmonic oscillator potential using the power series method. First he rewrites the shroedinger equation in the form d^2ψ/dε^2 = (ε^2 - K)ψ , where ε= x√(mw/hbar) and K=2E/(ω hbar ) .
Then he says that at large ε, we can approximate the equation to be d^2ψ/dε^2 ≈ ε^2ψ . So ψ≈Ae^(-ε^2 /2 ) + Be^(ε^2 /2 ) . But at large ε, we have to remove the Be^(ε^2 /2 ) term because otherwise, the wave function wouldn't be normalizable: ψ≈Ae^(-ε^2 /2 )

and then he does something that I don't understand :

" ψ(ε) → ( ) e^(-ε^2 /2 ) at large ε

This suggests we "peel off" the exponential part,

ψ(ε) = h(ε)e^(-ε^2 /2 )

"

and then he goes on to solve the h(ε) rather than the ψ(ε) : h(ε) = ∑aj ε^j


Why did he do that? Why not from the very beginning assume that ψ(ε)= ∑aj ε^j and find a recursion formula for that ?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Because he wanted to motivate the decision to use a power series. In my copy Griffith's even makes a footnote stating that this is, as you reasoned, the idea behind solving diff. eq's using power series.
 
but I tried rewriting the Shroedinger equation as d^2ψ/dε^2 - (ε^2 - K)ψ = 0 and then assumed ψ=∑aj ε^j , then substituted in the Shroedinger equation but got a different recursion formula :
a_(j+2) = (a_(j-2) - a_(j)K ) / (j+2)(j+1) . How can I deduce that K must equal 2j+1 from this recursion relation ?
 
user3 said:
but I tried rewriting the Shroedinger equation as d^2ψ/dε^2 - (ε^2 - K)ψ = 0 and then assumed ψ=∑aj ε^j , then substituted in the Shroedinger equation but got a different recursion formula :
a_(j+2) = (a_(j-2) - a_(j)K ) / (j+2)(j+1) . How can I deduce that K must equal 2j+1 from this recursion relation ?
You can't. That's because it is a three-term recursion relation (i.e. it involves a's with three different subscripts).

Which is exactly the purpose of factoring out the exponential - to lead to a differential equation that can be solved by a two-term recursion relation and therefore has polynomial solutions.
 
I did not separate out the Gaussian potential once about 5 or 6 years ago. Like Bill_K, I got a three term recursion relation. Best to do as Griffith or other QM texts recommend.
 
Well the reason he does that is that he needs the exponential to save the normalizability of the function for ε going to infinity...
Then what else could someone think as the general solution that has exponential damping in the upper limit?
In general it's the sum of powers of ε, since their growing rate is canceled out by the exponential's decrease.

Almost the same approaches you can find in Hydrogen atom solutions...
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K