Why is this NOT a solution to the time independent Schrodinger equation.

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the time-independent Schrödinger equation (TISE) and the nature of solutions to this equation. The original poster is tasked with demonstrating why a linear combination of solutions, represented as |Capital-psi>=Sum(C_n|psi_n>), does not satisfy the TISE.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Problem interpretation

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster expresses uncertainty about how to approach the problem, particularly regarding the application of the Hamiltonian operator H to the linear combination of states.
  • Some participants suggest considering how H operates on individual states and whether it can be applied to a linear combination of states.
  • Questions arise about the necessity of including a time-dependent factor in the solution and the implications of the TISE being time-independent.
  • There are attempts to clarify the relationship between the operator H and the eigenstates |psi_n>, as well as the consequences of applying H to the linear combination of these states.

Discussion Status

The discussion is ongoing, with participants exploring various interpretations of the problem. Some guidance has been offered regarding the application of operators to different states, but there is no explicit consensus on the resolution of the original poster's question.

Contextual Notes

Participants are navigating the complexities of quantum mechanics and the formalism of Bra-Ket notation, which seems to be a source of confusion for the original poster. There is also a mention of homework constraints that may limit the information available for discussion.

pablo4429
Messages
19
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Given a set of solutions |psi_n> to the TISE show that

a) |Capital-psi>=Sum(C_n|psi_n>) is not a solution to the TISE


Homework Equations



***H|psi_n>=E_n|psi_n>

The Attempt at a Solution



I don't really know where to start, I plugged |psi_n> into *** and I am not sure what is supposed to happen or if I am even supposed to do that.

Thanks all and sorry about the lack of tex formatting
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Think about it this way: the equation involves an operator H. You already know how H acts on a state that can be labeled |\psi_n\rangle. But what other state do you have that you could apply H to?
 
Could it also operate on a linear combination of psi, i.e. c_n |psi_n>?
 
Yes. What do you get when you do that? Can you write H|Capital-psi> as some eigenvalue times |Capital-psi>?
 
I really don't know, this is a guess

|Capital_psi>=sum(|a><a|psi(t=0)>)

if that is right I don't know why...
 
or

|capital_psi>=sum(a_i|i>)

where a is the eigenvalue
 
does it need an exp(-iEt/h) tagged on the back of it for it to be a solution. Then the SE is separable and we can turn it into the equation I put in the "2" section of the first post?
 
So I think I get it, I hope

Without the time term, the *** equation above has t and x dependence all wrapped together which isn't explicitly solvable so the addition of that terms allows them all to cancel and separate the time stuff on one side which just turns into E and the spatial stuff on the other, the Hamiltonian acting on psi. If this is right them the damn formalism of the BraKet notation is what was confusing me.
 
No, I don't think that's it. The time independent Schrödinger equation (equation *** in your original post) doesn't involve time at all. That's why it's called time independent.

What do you get when you apply the operator H to |\Psi\rangle? Remember that
|\Psi\rangle = \sum_n c_n|\psi_n\rangle
 
  • #10
diazona said:
No, I don't think that's it. The time independent Schrödinger equation (equation *** in your original post) doesn't involve time at all. That's why it's called time independent.

What do you get when you apply the operator H to |\Psi\rangle? Remember that
|\Psi\rangle = \sum_n c_n|\psi_n\rangle

I have no idea then! I don't know what you get. There is a d^2/dx^2(sum(c_n*psi_n)) and V(x)*sum(c_n*psi_n) but I am pretty sure that is not right and if it is I don't know what it means or where to go at all
 
  • #11
I have to show why that (what you wrote) is not a solution and I simply don't see why or where I will show that
 
  • #12
Try building up to it, then. Suppose that you have an operator which is defined to satisfy the relation
A|\psi_n\rangle = n(n + 1)|\psi_n\rangle
Consider the following questions in order:

What do you get when you apply the operator A to this state?
|\phi\rangle = c_i|\psi_i\rangle
Is the result a multiple of |\phi\rangle?

What do you get when you apply A to this state?
|\Phi\rangle = c_i|\psi_i\rangle + c_j|\psi_j\rangle
Is the result a multiple of |\Phi\rangle?

What do you get when you apply A to this state?
|\varphi\rangle = \sum_m c_m|\psi_m\rangle
Is the result a multiple of |\varphi\rangle?

Now what if you replace the defining relation for A with this?
A|\psi_n\rangle = E_n|\psi_n\rangle
What would A|\varphi\rangle be now?

Once you understand these, go back and do the same thing with H.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
5K
Replies
29
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K