Chapter 2: Q25P (page 77)
Check the uncertainty principle for the wave function in the equation? Equation 2.129.
Short Answer
Uncertainty of the wave equation
/*! This file is auto-generated */ .wp-block-button__link{color:#fff;background-color:#32373c;border-radius:9999px;box-shadow:none;text-decoration:none;padding:calc(.667em + 2px) calc(1.333em + 2px);font-size:1.125em}.wp-block-file__button{background:#32373c;color:#fff;text-decoration:none}
Learning Materials
Features
Discover
Chapter 2: Q25P (page 77)
Check the uncertainty principle for the wave function in the equation? Equation 2.129.
Uncertainty of the wave equation
All the tools & learning materials you need for study success - in one app.
Get started for free
Although the overall phase constant of the wave function is of no physical significance (it cancels out whenever you calculate a measurable quantity), the relative phase of the coefficients in Equation 2.17 does matter. For example, suppose we change the relative phase of in problem 2.5:Where is some constant. Find , and , and compare your results with what you got before. Study the special cases .
This is a strictly qualitative problem-no calculations allowed! Consider the "double square well" potential (Figure 2.21). Suppose the depth and the width a are fixed, and large enough so that several bound states occur.

(a) Sketch the ground state wave function and the first excited state localid="1658211858701" (i) for the case b = 0 (ii) forand (iii) for
(b) Qualitatively, how do the corresponding energiesand vary, as b goes from 0 to ? Sketch and on the same graph.
(c) The double well is a very primitive one-dimensional model for the potential experienced by an electron in a diatomic molecule (the two wells represent the attractive force of the nuclei). If the nuclei are free to move, they will adopt the configuration of minimum energy. In view of your conclusions in (b), does the electron tend to draw the nuclei together, or push them apart? (Of course, there is also the internuclear repulsion to consider, but that's a separate problem.)
Show that there is no acceptable solution to the Schrodinger equation for the infinite square well with or(This is a special case of the general theorem in Problem 2.2, but this time do it by explicitly solving the Schrodinger equation, and showing that you cannot meet the boundary conditions.)
In this problem we explore some of the more useful theorems (stated without proof) involving Hermite polynomials.
a. The Rodrigues formula says that
Use it to derive and .
b. The following recursion relation gives you in terms of the two preceding Hermite polynomials:
Use it, together with your answer in (a), to obtain and .
(c) If you differentiate an nth-order polynomial, you get a polynomial of
Order (n-1). For the Hermite polynomials, in fact,
Check this, by differentiatingand .
d. is the nth z-derivative, at z = 0, of the generating function or, to put it another way, it is the coefficient of in the Taylor series expansion for this function:
Use this to obtain and .
Solve the time-independent Schrodinger equation with appropriate boundary conditions for the 鈥渃entered鈥 infinite square well: (for), (otherwise). Check that your allowed energies are consistent with mine (Equation 2.30), and confirm that your can be obtained from mine (Equation 2.31) by the substitution x 鈫 (x + a)/2 (and appropriate renormalization). Sketch your first three solutions, and compare Figure 2.2. Note that the width of the well is now 2a.
What do you think about this solution?
We value your feedback to improve our textbook solutions.