- #1
- 5,779
- 172
I though there's a simple ansatz for a particle in an infinite square well with a moving wall, i.e. in the interval [0,L(t)].
The eigenfunctions and eigenvalues for
[tex]\left[-\frac{1}{2m}\frac{\partial^2}{\partial x^2} - E_n\right]\,u_n(x) = 0[/tex]
are
[tex]u_n(x) = \sin\left(\frac{2\pi n}{L}x\right)[/tex]
[tex]E_n = \frac{1}{2m}\left(\frac{2\pi n}{L}\right)^2[/tex]
When making L time-dependent these equations remain valid. Therefore it seems a good idea to make the following ansatz for the time-dependent Schroedinger equation:
[tex]i\frac{d}{dt}\psi(x,t) = \left[-\frac{1}{2m}\frac{\partial^2}{\partial x^2} - E_n\right]\,\psi(x,t)[/tex]
[tex]\psi(x,t) = \sum_n\phi_n(t)\,u_n(x,t)[/tex]
When acting with the Hamiltonian on psi on the r.h.s. all what happens is that the eigenvalue becomes time-dep. This is fine. When acting with i∂t on psi we get two terms; there is the time-derivative of phi, which is OK. But the other term
[tex]\dot{u}_n(x,t) \sim x\,\cos\left(\frac{2\pi n}{L}x\right)\,\frac{\dot{L}}{L^2}[/tex]
is problematic b/c the cosine explicitly violates the boundary conditions for x=0 and x=L.
What is wrong with my ansatz? And what would be an alternative?
The eigenfunctions and eigenvalues for
[tex]\left[-\frac{1}{2m}\frac{\partial^2}{\partial x^2} - E_n\right]\,u_n(x) = 0[/tex]
are
[tex]u_n(x) = \sin\left(\frac{2\pi n}{L}x\right)[/tex]
[tex]E_n = \frac{1}{2m}\left(\frac{2\pi n}{L}\right)^2[/tex]
When making L time-dependent these equations remain valid. Therefore it seems a good idea to make the following ansatz for the time-dependent Schroedinger equation:
[tex]i\frac{d}{dt}\psi(x,t) = \left[-\frac{1}{2m}\frac{\partial^2}{\partial x^2} - E_n\right]\,\psi(x,t)[/tex]
[tex]\psi(x,t) = \sum_n\phi_n(t)\,u_n(x,t)[/tex]
When acting with the Hamiltonian on psi on the r.h.s. all what happens is that the eigenvalue becomes time-dep. This is fine. When acting with i∂t on psi we get two terms; there is the time-derivative of phi, which is OK. But the other term
[tex]\dot{u}_n(x,t) \sim x\,\cos\left(\frac{2\pi n}{L}x\right)\,\frac{\dot{L}}{L^2}[/tex]
is problematic b/c the cosine explicitly violates the boundary conditions for x=0 and x=L.
What is wrong with my ansatz? And what would be an alternative?
Last edited: