Wave Equation in 2 Dimensions - Basic

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the wave equation in two dimensions as it relates to quantum mechanics (QM). Participants explore the extension of one-dimensional wave functions to two dimensions, addressing the mathematical challenges involved in solving the Schrödinger equation with multiple variables.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Homework-related
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents a one-dimensional wave equation and attempts to extend it to two dimensions, expressing confusion over the normalization of the wave function and the relationship between constants A and B.
  • Another participant questions the validity of simply adding solutions and suggests using the method of separation of variables to find appropriate solutions for the two-dimensional case.
  • A participant expresses a need for guidance on tackling partial differential equations, indicating a lack of experience with them.
  • One response advises looking for solutions of the form ψ(x,y) = X(x)Y(y) and discusses the implications of the 2-D Laplacian in the context of the wave equation.
  • Another participant acknowledges their familiarity with separation of variables from differential equations but indicates they do not have a QM text for reference.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants appear to agree on the necessity of using separation of variables for solving the two-dimensional wave equation, but there is no consensus on the initial approach taken by the first participant or the specific steps to resolve the issues raised.

Contextual Notes

There are limitations regarding the participants' varying levels of familiarity with partial differential equations and quantum mechanics, which may affect their ability to engage with the topic fully. Additionally, the normalization process and the relationship between constants A and B remain unresolved.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be useful for students or individuals interested in quantum mechanics, particularly those looking to understand the mathematical foundations of wave functions in multiple dimensions.

DougD720
Messages
47
Reaction score
0
Hey Everyone,

So I've been working on some very basic QM mathematics. Basically I've worked out the wave equation for a particle in one dimension (briefly) like so:

Code:
-[tex]\frac{\hbar [SUP]2[/SUP]}{2m}[/tex][tex]\psi[/tex]"(x) + V(x)[tex]\psi[/tex](x) = E[tex]\psi[/tex](x)

V = 0 for 0 < x < L  ; (L = "Length" of the Boundary)

=> [tex]\psi[/tex](x) = A sin([tex]\frac{n \pi x}{L}[/tex])

=> A = [tex]\frac{L}{2}[/tex]

The trouble I'm having is trying to extrapolate this to two spatial dimensions (if that can be done in the fashion I'm trying).

I follow the same process except my solution to the Schrödinger equation (solution to the differential equation) is

Code:
[tex]\psi[/tex](x,y) = A sin([tex]\frac{n \pi x}{L}[/tex]) + B sin([tex]\frac{n \pi y}{L}[/tex])

A[SUP]2[/SUP]([tex]\frac{L}{2}[/tex])y + B[SUP]2[/SUP]([tex]\frac{L}{2}[/tex])x = 1

^ From Normalizing the Solution with Limits of integration for the double integral of 0 < (x,y) < L

The problem is that instead of finding the 'constants' A and B I've now got a relationship between them.

If someone could point out what I did wrong in my process (determine the wave equation differential equation, normalize and solve) and if that's alright where I go from here in writing the full wave-function of the model, I'd greatly appreciate it.

Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Why do you think you can simply add solutions? You can use the method of separation of variables to find solutions of the form \psi (x,y) = X(x)Y(y) however. To be sure, plug your solution into the equation and you'll see that it isn't a solution.
 
Thank you, I'll work that one out
 
I'm in need of some direction... I have differential equation experience and partial integrals/derivatives but I believe this is a partial differential equation now that both the x and y variables have been introduced and I have not worked on partial diff eqs. Where do I start to tackle this one? I tried a few solutions with a guess and check and none of them have worked and I'm a bit stuck with this one. Any help would be appreciated, thank you
 
Well, you should find a section on Separation of Variables in your QM text if you have one or a book on PDE's. You seem like you have an understanding enough for me to just say the following: Look for solutions of the form \psi (x,y) = X(x)Y(y) . Your Hamiltonian now is the 2-D Laplacian so your DE looks like \frac{{ - h^2 }}{{2m}}(\frac{{\partial ^2 }}{{\partial x^2 }} + \frac{{\partial ^2 }}{{\partial y^2 }})\psi (x,y) = E\psi (x,y). There's some math that shows the solution form we have is valid so you can check that out on your own.

Now simple arranging shows this is also \frac{{\partial ^2 \psi (x,y)}}{{\partial x^2 }} + \frac{{\partial ^2 \psi (x,y)}}{{\partial y^2 }} = \frac{{ - 2mE}}{{h^2 }}\psi (x,y). At this point, you plug in your solution \psi (x,y) = X(x)Y(y). At this point you can do some slight manipulations and what you'll get is basically 2 separated ODE's summing to 0. For PDE's, the only way this is possible is if both ODE's are equal to a constant (otherwise you couldn't have independent variations between x and y which is a requirement from your DE). Make up a set of constants, say m and -m and from there, solve the ODE's and look back on your solution form and construct your wavefunction.
 
I don't have a QM text but I know of separation of variables from diff. eq. I have to take the time to read through your explanation but from skimming it it looks like I can follow your steps. Thank you!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
2K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
6K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K