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

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on determining the equation for a wavefunction defined piecewise for a particle confined in the region -4 <= z <= 6. The wavefunction is given as psi(z) = A(4+z) for -4 <= z <= 1, A(6-z) for 1 <= z <= 6, and 0 elsewhere, creating a peak at z=1. Participants clarify that this piecewise definition is indeed the wavefunction, which should be used to calculate expectation values by breaking the integral into separate regions. The integrals must account for the defined segments of the wavefunction, leading to four distinct integrals based on the boundaries. Overall, the approach to integrating the wavefunction is confirmed as correct, despite initial doubts about its completeness.
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 'Help with Time-Independent Perturbation Theory "Good" States Proof'
(Disclaimer: this is not a HW question. I am self-studying, and this felt like the type of question I've seen in this forum. If there is somewhere better for me to share this doubt, please let me know and I'll transfer it right away.) I am currently reviewing Chapter 7 of Introduction to QM by Griffiths. I have been stuck for an hour or so trying to understand the last paragraph of this proof (pls check the attached file). It claims that we can express Ψ_{γ}(0) as a linear combination of...
Back
Top