Consider the complex plane wave \[\Psi (x,t) = A{e}^{i(kx-\omega t)}.\] Show that
\[i\hbar \frac{\partial \Psi}{\partial t} = \frac{-{\hbar}^{2}}{2m} \frac{{\partial}^{2} \Psi}{\partial {x}^{2}} + V(x)\Psi (x,t)\] for some potential function \(V(x)\).
Solution
The Hamiltonian of a system is H=T+V where T is the kinetic energy and V is the potential energy. Since the quantity H is the total energy, let us rewrite the Hamiltonian as E=2mp2+V(x).
Now, we take the derivatives:
∂t∂Ψ=−iωAei(kx−ωt)=−iωΨ(x,t)
∂x2∂2Ψ=−k2Aei(kx−ωt)=−k2Ψ(x,t)
Since p=λ2πℏ and k=λ2π, where k is the wavenumber and λ is the wavelength, we have k=ℏp.
Therefore,
∂x2∂2Ψ=−ℏ2p2Ψ(x,t).
Next, we multiply Ψ(x,t) to the Hamiltonian:
EΨ(x,t)=2mp2Ψ(x,t)+V(x)Ψ(x,t).
Notice that the above equation can be expressed as
EΨ(x,t)=2m−ℏ2∂x2∂2Ψ+V(x)Ψ(x,t).
Since the energy of matter waves is given by E=ℏω, we can show that
EΨ(x,t)=−iωℏωΨ(x,t).
Combining all the right parts, we assemble the Schrödinger equation:
iℏ∂t∂Ψ=2m−ℏ2∂x2∂2Ψ+V(x)Ψ(x,t).
Check out my other notes at Proof, Disproof, and Derivation
#Mechanics
#QuantumMechanics
#SchrodingerEquation
Easy Math Editor
This discussion board is a place to discuss our Daily Challenges and the math and science related to those challenges. Explanations are more than just a solution — they should explain the steps and thinking strategies that you used to obtain the solution. Comments should further the discussion of math and science.
When posting on Brilliant:
*italics*or_italics_**bold**or__bold__paragraph 1
paragraph 2
[example link](https://brilliant.org)> This is a quote# I indented these lines # 4 spaces, and now they show # up as a code block. print "hello world"\(...\)or\[...\]to ensure proper formatting.2 \times 32^{34}a_{i-1}\frac{2}{3}\sqrt{2}\sum_{i=1}^3\sin \theta\boxed{123}Comments
How do we know that from the start the wave function "must" be complex?
Log in to reply
We don't. The assumption that the wave function is a complex plane wave is reasonable, however, because any wave can be represented as a linear combination of such waves (Fourier proved this in a more rudimentary way). Also, all of the operators you see above are derived from the complex plane wave solution.
Log in to reply
Yup. But my set Proof, Disproof, and Derivation is still a set of problems. I could have asked to show some other wavefunction that satisfies the Schrödinger equation. It's just the complex wave is most general.
Log in to reply
So why don't we start with complex function when we derive sound wave equation?
Log in to reply
Well if I'm not mistaken I believe a sound wave would actually just be a case of the wave equation, which also describes oscillations on a string and such
Log in to reply
The complex plane waves describes EM waves. We could in principle use complex plane waves for everything, but that is simply overkill because on of the phases is has amplitude 0. EM Waves vs Sound Wave
Schrodinger's equation cannot be derived from anything. It is as fundamental and axiomatic in Quantum Mechanics as Newton's Laws is in classical mechanics (we can prove the Newton's Laws as an approximation of the Schrodinger's equation in the classical level). If you scrutinize the definition given above, one will find that the relation H=T+V that is being used is nothing but the energy conservation principle. So Schrodinger's equation is actually the energy conservation principle from a quantum perspective. Just like one has no proof for the energy conservation other than experiments which always seem to satisfy it, Schrodinger's equation has no pen-and-paper proof. The only evidences of its validity are experiments that have never violated the equation till date.
Log in to reply
You can derive the Schrodinger equation from Feynman's path integral formalism. In 1st year classes typically the Schrodinger equation is took as axiomatic as it is too difficult to derive quantum mechanics from its more fundamental axioms. In addition it is not true that there is no proof of energy conservation, energy conservation is easily proven from Noether's theorem and temporal symmetry.
Log in to reply
Yes that might be true and I might have overlooked that since I am not very conversant with higher physics. But what I want to say is that whenever you want to prove something in physics you use some theory. That theory rests on some axioms. In this course you will get a chain of theories and axioms which has to end somewhere. That "somewhere" has no proof. If you want to prove that "somewhere" you need a more fundamental theory with more fundamental axioms. But ultimately are you really proving anything?
What if I convert this equation in three dimensions and take partial derivatives of all of them, would it be correct.
What are the major operators in quantum mechanics?
Derive e=mc²
Write a comment or ask a question...what are the major operators in quantum mechanics?