Finding V(x) of a given wave function?

AI Thread Summary
To find V(x) for the given wave function Aexp[(-x²)/(2L²)], the time-independent Schrödinger equation must be utilized. The energy E is provided as E = h-bar²/(2mL²), which simplifies the process. The key steps involve differentiating the wave function twice and substituting it back into the Schrödinger equation. Normalization of the wave function is not necessary for this specific problem. The discussion emphasizes that the solution primarily involves algebraic manipulation following the differentiation.
Rumor
Messages
11
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



"A wave function is given by Aexp[(-x2)/(2L2)] with an energy of E = h-bar2/2mL2. Assuming this is a solution to the time-independent Schroedinger equation,
a) What is V(x)? Make an accurate sketch of V vs. x with labeled axes
b) What sort of classical potential has this form?


Homework Equations



The Schroedinger time-independent equation: -(h-bar2/2m) * d2Psi/dx2 + V * Psi = E * Psi


The Attempt at a Solution



I know that to solve this problem, I have to integrate the original Psi function twice in order to plug it into the Schroedinger equation. Or normalize it, in order to plug it into the equation. E also has to be determined, but I'm not sure how to go about that or what value of n to use. Basically, my biggest problem is my lack of ability to successfully integrate the psi equation and knowing how to go about figuring out E. Could someone help me, please?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The Schroedinger equation is a differential equation, you will need to differentiate \Psi twice, not integrate it. It is not necessary to normalize the wavefunction to solve this problem. Also, the energy of the state described by \Psi has been given to you in the problem.
 
Ah, right! Wow, I've been working on physics problem long enough that I'm starting to mix them. But anyway, after differentiating the psi function twice and plugging it back into the Schroedinger equation, am I correct in thinking that that's all to be done? Aside from simplifying and everything.
 
Yes, it's mostly an algebra problem at its heart.
 
Awesome. Thanks for settin' me straight.
 
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