Using the normalise wavefunction, calculate momentum squared

AI Thread Summary
To calculate the expectation value of momentum squared for a particle in a one-dimensional infinite potential well, the normalized wavefunction must first be established. The momentum operator is defined as \(\hat{P} = -i\hbar \frac{d}{dx}\), and squaring this operator results in a second derivative. The expectation value \(\langle p^2 \rangle\) can be computed using the expression \(\langle \Psi_1 | \hat{P}^2 | \Psi_1 \rangle\). Normalization of the wavefunction is necessary to ensure that \(\langle \Psi_1 | \Psi_1 \rangle = 1\). This process is essential for accurate calculations in quantum mechanics.
AStaunton
Messages
100
Reaction score
1
[problem is:

the wavefunction for a particle in a stationary state of a one dimensional infinite potential well is given by:

\Psi_{1}(x,t)=A\cos(\frac{\pi x}{2a})e^{-i\frac{Et}{\hbar}} for -a\leq x\leq a

= 0 otherwise.

using the normalised wavefunction calculate the expectation value of momentum squared:

\langle p^{2}\rangle


My attemted solution:

i know that to find momentum p, the operator is:

\bar{p}=-\hbar\bar{\nabla}^{2}

so we say:

\langle p\rangle=\int\Psi^{\star}\bar{p}\Psi dx

is it simply a matter of squaring p at this stage to get p^2?

Also, it says to use the normalised wave function, have I done this already in my integration step or is there something else needs be done?

Andrew
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Just square the momentum operator first, then integrate between the two Psi's (I'm completely new to this forum, so I can't write tex code yet. bear with me)
 
in terms of squaring the momentum operator, who is this done?

ie...the first part simple goes to (i^2hbar^2) but what does it mean to square the laplacian?
 
In position representation (one dimension), the momentum operator

\hat{P}\rightarrow-i\hbar\dfrac{d}{dx}.

You want to square this. Squaring a derivative operator just turns it into a second derivative. The process is then taking

\langle\hat{P}^2\rangle=\langle\Psi_1|\hat{P}^2|\Psi_1\rangle.

As for the normalization condition, what they want you to do is first normalize the wave function, i.e. solve for A such that

\langle\Psi_1|\Psi_1\rangle=1.

Sometimes an even easier way of taking <P^2> is to let one P operate on \langle\psi| and the other on |\psi\rangle so that you only have to work with first derivatives. In this case it won't make much of a difference, but it is a nice trick to have up your sleeve.
 
Last edited:
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