Variational method approximation for half-space linear potential

Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on using the variational method to approximate the ground state potential for a half-space linear potential defined as infinite for x<0 and Cx for x>0, with a test function of xe^{-αx}. The user calculates the expectation values for the Hamiltonian and normalization, leading to an expression that suggests minimizing with respect to α. Concerns arise regarding the possibility of α being negative and unbounded, which would imply unphysical results. Other participants emphasize that α must be greater than zero and suggest taking the derivative of the energy expression with respect to α and setting it to zero to find the minimum energy correctly. The conversation highlights the importance of ensuring proper integral calculations and maintaining physical constraints in variational methods.
mjordan2nd
Messages
173
Reaction score
1

Homework Statement



This was a test question I just had, and I'm fairly certain I got it wrong. I'm confused as to what I did wrong, though. We were told that our potential was infinite when x<0, and Cx where x>0. We were asked to approximate the ground state potential using the variational method with a test function xe^{- \alpha x}.

Homework Equations



The variational method states that

\frac{\langle \psi \mid \hat{H} \mid \Psi \rangle}{\langle \psi \mid \Psi \rangle} \ge E_0.


The Attempt at a Solution



I calculate

\langle \psi \mid \hat{H} \mid \Psi \rangle = \frac{3\hbar^2}{8m} + \frac{c}{4 \alpha^3}.

and

\langle \psi \mid \Psi \rangle = \frac{1}{4 \alpha^3}.

In total this gives me

\frac{\langle \psi \mid \hat{H} \mid \Psi \rangle}{\langle \psi \mid \Psi \rangle} = \frac{3 \hbar^2 \alpha^3}{2m} + c.

Now assuming I had gotten this far correctly, I was a little confused where to go from here. Presumable I need to minimize this with respect to alpha. However, this would mean that alpha will be negative and unbounded, correct? Or do I need to assume that alpha is greater than 0. In that case, wouldn't the minimum energy just be c? This seems wrong to me. Any advice would be appreciated.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Those should all be the same bras and kets up there. Can't go back and edit for some reason.
 
I believe that your integrals were a little off.

I find that the integrals should be

hbar^2/(8m*alpha), 3/(8*alpha^4), (4*alpha^3)^(-1)

After you simplify those, your next step is always to take the derivative with respect to alpha and set to zero. You were right to be alarmed by an unbounded, negative energy. That should not occur.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
905
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
24
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K