Understanding the Wave Equation and Separation of Variables for Particle States

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the wave equation and the application of separation of variables in the context of a particle's state. Participants are examining the implications of ignoring certain terms in the wave function and how this affects the representation of the momentum operator.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants are questioning the validity of ignoring the normalization constant in the wave function and its impact on the separation of variables. There is also a discussion about the representation of the momentum operator and its expected form.

Discussion Status

The conversation is active, with participants clarifying terms and questioning assumptions made in the textbook. Some guidance has been offered regarding the definitions and implications of the terms involved, but no consensus has been reached on the correctness of the book's approach.

Contextual Notes

There is mention of an exam problem from a university, which suggests that the context may impose specific constraints or expectations regarding the problem's setup and solution approach.

kasse
Messages
383
Reaction score
1
A particle is in a state described by [tex](\frac{mk}{\pi^2 \hbar^{2}})^{1/8}exp(- \frac{1}{2 \hbar} \sqrt{mk}x^{2})exp(-if(t))[/tex]

When applying separation of variables here, my book ignores the first fraction and sets

[tex]g(x) = exp(- \frac{1}{2 \hbar} \sqrt{mk}x^{2})[/tex]

[tex]h(t) = exp(-if(t))[/tex]

But then [tex]\Psi(x,t) \neq g(x)h(t)[/tex] right?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
That is indeed correct.
 
The book also says that [tex]p_{op} = -i \sqrt{mk}x exp(\frac{-1}{2 \hbar}\sqrt{mk}x^2)[/tex], so it has ignored the first fraction again. Is this wrong?
 
Last edited:
What is Pop meant to represent?
 
The momentum. [tex]p_{op}=-i \hbar \frac{\partial}{\partial x}[/tex]
 
Which text is this from? Looking at the wave function, the momentum should be a function of time and should include the nomalisation constant as you say.
 
An exam problem at my university, so it oughtn't be wrong.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K