Why must E exceed Vmin(x) for normalizable solutions?

  • Thread starter Thread starter RicardoMP
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the requirement that the energy E must exceed the minimum potential value Vmin(x) for normalizable solutions of the time-independent Schrödinger equation, specifically in the context of the infinite square well. The equation is expressed as $$\frac{d^2\psi}{dx^2}=\frac{2m}{\hbar^2}[V(x)-E]\psi$$. If E is less than or equal to Vmin(x), the wavefunction $$\psi$$ and its second derivative $$\psi''$$ will share the same sign, leading to non-normalizable solutions. The Hamiltonian operator is also discussed, emphasizing that a bound ground state must have an energy eigenvalue greater than zero.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of the time-independent Schrödinger equation
  • Familiarity with concepts of wavefunctions and normalization
  • Knowledge of Hamiltonian operators in quantum mechanics
  • Basic grasp of calculus, particularly derivatives and critical points
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the implications of the Hamiltonian operator $$\hat{H}=\hat{\vec{p}^2}{2m} + V(\hat{\vec{x}})$$ in quantum mechanics
  • Learn about the properties of normalizable wavefunctions and their significance
  • Explore the intermediate and mean-value theorems in calculus
  • Investigate the differences between real-valued and complex-valued wavefunctions
USEFUL FOR

Students and professionals in quantum mechanics, particularly those studying the Schrödinger equation, wavefunction normalization, and the properties of Hamiltonian operators.

RicardoMP
Messages
48
Reaction score
2
Hi! I've been studying the time-independent Schrödinger equation and the infinite square well and was faced with this problem from Griffith's "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics". Rewriting the equation this way $$\frac{d^2\psi}{dx^2}=\frac{2m}{\hbar^2}[V(x)-E]\psi$$, I have to show that E must exceed the minimum value of V(x), otherwise $$\psi$$ and its second derivative will always have the same sign, which would compromise its normalization. Why is that? I've been thinking for awhile and can't come up with a good proof that such function cannot be normalized.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
RicardoMP said:
Hi! I've been studying the time-independent Schrödinger equation and the infinite square well and was faced with this problem from Griffith's "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics". Rewriting the equation this way $$\frac{d^2\psi}{dx^2}=\frac{2m}{\hbar^2}[V(x)-E]\psi$$, I have to show that E must exceed the minimum value of V(x), otherwise $$\psi$$ and its second derivative will always have the same sign, which would compromise its normalization. Why is that? I've been thinking for awhile and can't come up with a good proof that such function cannot be normalized.

As part of an answer, we could imagine the following.

If the function \psi(x) and its second derivative \psi''(x) had the same sign, then what would happen at a critical point x_0 where the first derivative \psi'(x_0)=0?

If \psi(x) were positive at this critical point, then \psi''(x) would have to be as well, so the wavefunction would be concave up.
Since \psi''(x_0)>0, the values of \psi(x) near x_0 would be larger than \psi(x_0), and \psi''(x) would never change sign.

As a result, the wavefunction would just get larger and larger farther away from the critical point. Since the wavefunction couldn't reach zero for extreme values of x, the wavefunction would not be normalizeable.

For a more complete proof, you could also consider whether a wavefunction could exist that had no critical points, and also what happens if the critical point(s) has a negative or zero sign.
 
  • Like
Likes RicardoMP
jfizzix said:
As part of an answer, we could imagine the following.

If the function \psi(x) and its second derivative \psi''(x) had the same sign, then what would happen at a critical point x_0 where the first derivative \psi'(x_0)=0?

If \psi(x) were positive at this critical point, then \psi''(x) would have to be as well, so the wavefunction would be concave up.
Since \psi''(x_0)>0, the values of \psi(x) near x_0 would be larger than \psi(x_0), and \psi''(x) would never change sign.

As a result, the wavefunction would just get larger and larger farther away from the critical point. Since the wavefunction couldn't reach zero for extreme values of x, the wavefunction would not be normalizeable.

For a more complete proof, you could also consider whether a wavefunction could exist that had no critical points, and also what happens if the critical point(s) has a negative or zero sign.
I see! Makes perfect sense! Thank you very much!
 
It's much easier to understand in the operator formalism, i.e., not expressing it in terms of the position representation (wave functions).

The Hamiltonian reads
$$\hat{H}=\hat{\vec{p}^2}{2m} + V(\hat{\vec{x}}).$$
If now ##V## is bounded from below, then so is the Hamiltonian, because the kinetic energy is positive semidefinite, and there's a ground state. Without loss of generality we can assume that the minimum value of ##V## is ##0##. Assume there's an energy eigenstate with ##E=0##, it must then be an eigenvector of ##\hat{\vec{p}}## with eigenvalues ##\vec{p}=0##, but a momentum eigenstate cannot be a normalizable state, because the momentum operator has a purely continuous spectrum. Thus if there is a bound ground state, its energy eigenvalue cannot be 0 but must be >0.
 
  • Like
Likes RicardoMP
RicardoMP said:
Hi! I've been studying the time-independent Schrödinger equation and the infinite square well and was faced with this problem from Griffith's "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics". Rewriting the equation this way $$\frac{d^2\psi}{dx^2}=\frac{2m}{\hbar^2}[V(x)-E]\psi$$, I have to show that E must exceed the minimum value of V(x), otherwise $$\psi$$ and its second derivative will always have the same sign, which would compromise its normalization. Why is that? I've been thinking for awhile and can't come up with a good proof that such function cannot be normalized.

Just to add to @jfizzix's answer. The following properties of a real-valued ##\Psi## are sufficient:

1) ##\Psi## is continuous on ##\mathbb{R}##.

2) ##\lim_{x \to \pm \infty} \Psi(x) = 0##

One way to start a formal proof is to note that, unless ##\Psi = 0##, ##\exists x_0## such that ##\Psi(x_0) \ne 0##. And, without loss of generality, you can assume ##\Psi(x_0) > 0##. From there, you can use the intermediate and mean-value theorems to show the existence of a local maximum with a positive value - and that contradicts the "same-sign" property.

The case for a complex-valued ##\Psi## follows from the real-valued case.
 
  • Like
Likes RicardoMP

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
5K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
3K