What is the equation for the hypothetical wavefunction with a peak at z=1?

Ruddiger27
Messages
14
Reaction score
0
Sorry, another quick question. If I have a particle confined in a region of space -4 <= Z <=6 where
psi(x)= A(4+z), -4<= z <=1
A(6-z), 1<= z <=6
0 , everywhere else

And I sketch the wavefunction based on the above definitions, what is the actual equation for the wavefunction? The graph gives a peak at z=1 and slopes down to zero either side. Is this supposed to represent a sin(x) function, or am I supposed to just take the above definitions and fit them into the equations for expectation values? I don't think these equations would work in the equation for expectation values.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
That *is* the equation for the wavefunction... it is just defined in a piecewise manner. You need to take this definition and put it into the equations for expectation values... but you need to break up the integral into several regions, and put the particular piece of this wave function in. So instead of one integral from negative infinity to positive infinity, you'd have four integrals: negative infinity to -4 (psi is 0), -4 to 1 (psi is A(4+z)), 1 to 6 (psi is A(6-z)) and 6 to infinity (psi is 0 again).
 
Thanks, that's what I did, but it just seemed a bit wrong to me. Maybe because I thought there was more to it. Anyway, thank you.
 
Thread 'Need help understanding this figure on energy levels'
This figure is from "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" by Griffiths (3rd edition). It is available to download. It is from page 142. I am hoping the usual people on this site will give me a hand understanding what is going on in the figure. After the equation (4.50) it says "It is customary to introduce the principal quantum number, ##n##, which simply orders the allowed energies, starting with 1 for the ground state. (see the figure)" I still don't understand the figure :( Here is...
Thread 'Understanding how to "tack on" the time wiggle factor'
The last problem I posted on QM made it into advanced homework help, that is why I am putting it here. I am sorry for any hassle imposed on the moderators by myself. Part (a) is quite easy. We get $$\sigma_1 = 2\lambda, \mathbf{v}_1 = \begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ 0 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_2 = \lambda, \mathbf{v}_2 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_3 = -\lambda, \mathbf{v}_3 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ -1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} $$ There are two ways...
Back
Top