How Can Linear Combinations Prove Real Solutions in Quantum Mechanics?

In summary, the conversation discusses the process of proving a solution to a differential equation. The participants discuss the concept of linear combinations of solutions and how those solutions can be real. They also mention the importance of taking the complex conjugate and how it relates to finding real solutions. Finally, they discuss how any complex solution can be written as a linear combination of two real solutions, thus completing the proof.
  • #1
athrun200
277
0

Homework Statement


attachment.php?attachmentid=36776&stc=1&d=1309252119.jpg


I don't know how to prove b.)

Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution


attachment.php?attachmentid=36777&stc=1&d=1309252119.jpg


What can I do after writing these 4 eqtn?
 

Attachments

  • 1.jpg
    1.jpg
    42.5 KB · Views: 486
  • 2.jpg
    2.jpg
    15.9 KB · Views: 323
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
You're almost there. What do you know about a linear combination of solutions to a differential equation? What does that say about each independent solution?
 
  • #3
Clever-Name said:
You're almost there. What do you know about a linear combination of solutions to a differential equation? What does that say about each independent solution?

In fact that is the hint.
So can you also explain the hint?

And I still don't know how to get the answer:(
 
  • #4
I'm asking it in a different way to get you to think about it. Do you know what a linear combination is? (If not then say so and I'll explain it). Have you taken a course in differential equations?

If both elements in the linear combination are individually solutions to the differential equation then is it also true that the two elements combined in a linear combination is then a solution?
 
  • #5
Yes, I have taken courses about that and I know how to solve first and second linear differential eqtn.
However, all I know is how to calculate. I am not fully understand the meaning behind it.

Do you mean that I need to prove the solution for fourth eqtn is real.

i.e. [itex]i(\psi-\psi*)[/itex] is real?
 
  • #6
A differential equation is linear if none of the terms are being squared, cubed, square rooted, etc. Schrodinger's equation is linear because the wavefunction isn't being raised to any power, and neither is its second derivative.

For a linear system of equations (not necessarily differential equations), if you know that A and B are both solutions, all linear combinations of A and B must also be solutions. Here, you need to prove that if ψ is a solution to Schrodinger's equation, so is ψ*. Then you'll know that ψ+ψ* and i(ψ−ψ∗) are also solutions to Schrodinger's equation. But these are both real, which completes the proof.
 
  • #7
ideasrule said:
A differential equation is linear if none of the terms are being squared, cubed, square rooted, etc. Schrodinger's equation is linear because the wavefunction isn't being raised to any power, and neither is its second derivative.

For a linear system of equations (not necessarily differential equations), if you know that A and B are both solutions, all linear combinations of A and B must also be solutions. Here, you need to prove that if ψ is a solution to Schrodinger's equation, so is ψ*. Then you'll know that ψ+ψ* and i(ψ−ψ∗) are also solutions to Schrodinger's equation. But these are both real, which completes the proof.

I wonder if i(ψ−ψ∗) is real, because it has a " i " in front of it.
 
  • #8
Let [itex]\psi(x) = u(x) + i v(x)[/itex] where u(x) and v(x) are real functions. Then [itex]\psi^*(x) = u(x) - i v(x)[/itex].

What are [itex]\psi(x)+\psi^*(x)[/itex] and [itex]i(\psi(x)-\psi^*(x))[/itex] equal to?
 
  • #9
vela said:
Let [itex]\psi(x) = u(x) + i v(x)[/itex] where u(x) and v(x) are real functions. Then [itex]\psi^*(x) = u(x) - i v(x)[/itex].

What are [itex]\psi(x)+\psi^*(x)[/itex] and [itex]i(\psi(x)-\psi^*(x))[/itex] equal to?

Oh! Thanks so much!
Why I am so stupid that I didn't try to let [itex]\psi^*(x) = u(x) - i v(x)[/itex].:mad:
 
  • #10
vela said:
Let [itex]\psi(x) = u(x) + i v(x)[/itex] where u(x) and v(x) are real functions. Then [itex]\psi^*(x) = u(x) - i v(x)[/itex].

What are [itex]\psi(x)+\psi^*(x)[/itex] and [itex]i(\psi(x)-\psi^*(x))[/itex] equal to?
Wait a minute, it is easy to solve because of the hint.
How about without the hint? How can I get the fourth eqtn?

Can I obtain it like this?
By mutiplying [itex]i[/itex] on eqtn 1 and 2, implys that [itex]i\psi(x) [/itex] and [itex]i\psi(x)^* [/itex] are soln to the eqtn.

By subtracting them get the fourth eqtn.

Am I right?
 
  • #11
Here's my take on it:

Given

[tex] -\frac{{\hbar}^{2}}{2m}\frac{d^{2}{\psi}}{dx^{2}} + V{\psi} = E{\psi} [/tex]

Taking the complex conjugate:

[tex] -\frac{{\hbar}^{2}}{2m}\frac{d^{2}{\psi}^{*}}{dx^{2}} + V{\psi}^{*} = E{\psi}^{*} [/tex]

It's important to note that both V and E are real.

If we let [itex] {\psi}_{1} [/itex] and [itex] {\psi}_{2} [/itex] satisfy the first equation then so does some linear combination of them [itex] {\psi}_{3} [/itex] where:
[tex] {\psi}_{3} = c_{1}{\psi}_{1} + c_{2}{\psi}_{2} [/tex]

If we were to sub [itex] {\psi}_{3} [/itex] into the first equation we would expand out, rearrange blah blah blah simplify back down to the first equation again just with [itex] {\psi}_{3} [/itex] in place of [itex] {\psi} [/itex]

So there we have proved that a linear combination will satisfy the equation. We also know that both [itex] {\psi} [/itex] and [itex] {\psi}^{*} [/itex] are independent solutions.

The linear combinations:
[tex] {\psi} + {\psi}^{*} [/tex]
and
[tex] i({\psi} - {\psi}^{*}) [/tex]
are solutions and are also real.

Thus we can conclude that from any complex solution we can construct two real solutions.

We can write:

[tex] {\psi} = \frac{1}{2}[({\psi} + {\psi}^{*}) -i( i({\psi} - {\psi}^{*}))] [/tex]
which we can simplify down to just [itex] {\psi} [/itex] we have thus proven that any [itex] {\psi} [/itex] can be written as a linear combination of two real solutions.
 

1. What is a wave function?

A wave function is a mathematical function that describes the probability of a particle being in a certain location in space at a given time.

2. How is a wave function used in science?

Wave functions are used in quantum mechanics to describe the behavior of subatomic particles, such as electrons. They help scientists predict the location of particles and their properties.

3. What does it mean to "prove" a wave function?

In science, proving a wave function means that experimental data and mathematical calculations support the predicted behavior of a particle according to the wave function.

4. What does it mean to be "stumped" in regards to proving a wave function?

Being stumped means that the experimental data and mathematical calculations do not align with the predicted behavior of a particle according to the wave function. This can indicate a need for further research or a potential flaw in the current understanding of the particle's behavior.

5. How can a scientist overcome being "stumped" in proving a wave function?

To overcome being stumped, a scientist may need to revise the wave function or conduct further experiments to gather more data. They may also need to collaborate with other scientists and consider alternative explanations for the discrepancies. Ultimately, it may require a re-evaluation of scientific theories and understanding in order to fully explain the behavior of the particle.

Similar threads

  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
8
Views
358
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
85
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
623
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
7
Views
1K
Back
Top