DOCSLIB.ORG

Improving Students' Understanding of Quantum Measurement. I. Investigation of Difficulties

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Improving Students' Understanding of Quantum Measurement. I. Investigation of Difficulties PHYSICAL REVIEW SPECIAL TOPICS - PHYSICS EDUCATION RESEARCH 8, 010117 (2012) Improving students’ understanding of quantum measurement. I. Investigation of difficulties Guangtian Zhu1,2 and Chandralekha Singh2 1School of Education Science, East China Normal University, Shanghai, China, 200062 2Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 15260, USA (Received 3 October 2011; published 19 April 2012) We describe the difficulties that advanced undergraduate and graduate students have with quantum measurement within the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics. We explore the possible origins of these difficulties by analyzing student responses to questions from both surveys and interviews. Results from this research are applied to develop research-based learning tutorials to improve students’ understanding of quantum measurement. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.8.010117 PACS numbers: 01.40.Fk I. INTRODUCTION measured and the measured value is the corresponding eigenvalue. For example, in an ideal measurement, if we Quantum mechanics is a particularly challenging sub- measure the position of a quantum particle in a one- ject, even for advanced students [1–4]. These difficulties dimensional (1D) infinite square well, its wave function have been described in a number of investigations [5–12]. will collapse to a position eigenfunction which is a delta Based on these findings, we are developing a set of function in the position representation. If we measure its research-based learning tools to reduce students’ difficul- energy instead, the wave function of the system will col- ties and help them develop a solid grasp of quantum lapse into an energy eigenfunction, which is a sinusoidal mechanics [13–15]. This paper (Part I) is the first of two function inside the 1D well and goes to zero at the two papers in which we discuss the investigation of students’ boundaries (and is zero everywhere outside the well). difficulties with quantum measurement. This investigation The eigenvalue spectrum of an operator can either be was conducted with the undergraduate and graduate stu- discrete or continuous or a combination of the two. In an N dents at the University of Pittsburgh (Pitt) and other uni- dimensional Hilbert space, an operator Q^ corresponding to versities by administering written tests and by conducting a physical observable Q with discrete eigenvalue spectrum in-depth individual interviews with a subset of students. has N eigenvalues qn and corresponding eigenstates jqni. The development of the research-based learning tools and The state of the system at a given time, jÉðtÞi, can be the preliminary evaluation of students’ performance after written as a linear superposition of a complete set of using the learning tools is described in Part II [16]. eigenstates of jqni. By projecting the wave function of The standard formalism of quantum measurement the system jÉðtÞi at time t onto an eigenstate jqni of the (which is taught to the undergraduate and graduate students ^ 2 operator Q, we can find the probability jhqnjÉðtÞij of universally) is quite different from classical mechanics, obtaining qn when the observable Q is measured at time t. where position and momentum of a particle evolve in a After the measurement of the observable Q, the time deterministic manner based upon the interactions [1]. In evolution of the state of the system, which is an eigenstate quantum mechanics, position, momentum, and other ob- of Q^ right after the measurement, is again governed by the servables are in general not well defined for a given state of TDSE. Right after the measurement of energy, the state of a quantum system. The time-dependent Schro¨dinger equa- the system collapses into the same energy eigenstate, and tion (TDSE) governs the time evolution of the state which the probability density does not change with time (we only can be written as a linear superposition of a complete set of focus on time-independent Hamiltonians) since the only eigenstates of any Hermitian operator corresponding to a physical observable. The state of the system evolves in a change in the wave function with time is an overall time- deterministic manner depending on the Hamiltonian of the dependent phase factor. If the system is initially in an energy eigenstate at time t ¼ 0 and we measure an arbi- system. According to the Copenhagen interpretation, quan- Q t tum measurement would instantaneously collapse the wave trary physical observable after a time , the probability of obtaining an eigenvalue will be time independent since the function (or the state of the system) to an eigenstate of t the operator corresponding to the physical observable system was still in an energy eigenstate at time at the instant the measurement of Q was performed. Therefore, the energy eigenstates are called the stationary states. On the other hand, a measurement of position would Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License. Further distri- collapse the system into a position eigenstate at the instant bution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the measurement is made. However, a position eigenstate is the published article’s title, journal citation, and DOI. a linear superposition of the energy eigenstates and the 1554-9178=12=8(1)=010117(8) 010117-1 Published by the American Physical Society GUANGTIAN ZHU AND CHANDRALEKHA SINGH PHYS. REV. ST PHYS. EDUC. RES. 8, 010117 (2012) different energy eigenstates in the linear superposition will TABLE I. The choice distribution of 10 students answering the evolve with different time-dependent phase factors. question about stationary state and eigenstate after traditional Therefore, the probability density after position measure- instruction. ment will change with time. In this case, the probability of Answers A B (correct) C D E No answer measuring a particular value of energy will be time inde- pendent, but the probability of measuring another physical Percentage 20% 0% 0% 10% 50% 20% observable whose operator does not commute with the Hamiltonian will depend on time. The correct answer is B (3 only). In statement (1), the stationary states should refer to the energy eigenstates only. II. INVESTIGATION OF Q^ STUDENTS’ DIFFICULTIES A complete set of eigenstates of an arbitrary operator cannot be stationary states if Q^ does not commute with the The goal of the investigation was to examine students’ Hamiltonian operator H^ . However, out of 10 students difficulties with quantum measurement after traditional randomly selected from a junior-senior level quantum instruction. The topics included in the investigation, such mechanics class, none of them gave the correct answer as the measurement outcomes, probability of obtaining an after traditional instruction. The distribution of students’ eigenvalue, stationary states, and eigenstates, etc., were all answers is shown in Table I. The most common incorrect covered in the traditional instruction of quantum mechan- choice was E (all of the above). Nearly half of the students ics. The investigation was carried out over several years. thought that all three statements were correct because they For example, students were given the questions as part of had difficulty in differentiating between the related con- the concept tests, quizzes, or tests depending upon the cepts of stationary states and eigenstates of other observ- instructor’s preference. Therefore, the number of students ables. Some students selected choice A (1 only), which is who answered a particular question varies. To simplify the interesting because one may expect that students who mathematics and focus on the concepts related to quantum claimed statement (1) was correct and understood why a measurement, we often used the model of a 1D infinite stationary state is called so may think that statement (2) is square well during the investigation. Both open-ended correct as well. In particular, for students who claimed questions and multiple-choice questions were administered statement (1) is correct, statement (2) may be considered to probe students’ difficulties. We also had informal dis- ‘‘a system in a stationary state stays in that state unless an cussions with a subset of students who took the written test external perturbation is applied,’’ which described the and formally interviewed some students to get a better property of stationary state. However, students who se- understanding of students’ reasoning process. lected choice A did not relate the stationary state with the special nature of the time evolution in that state. A. Difficulty in distinguishing between eigenstates of operators corresponding to different observables B. Difficulty with possible outcomes of a measurement The measurement of a physical observable collapses the and the expectation value of the measurement result wave function of the quantum system into an eigenstate of the corresponding operator. Many students have difficulties The following is an example of a multiple-choice ques- distinguishing between energy eigenstates and the eigen- tion which was administered to investigate students’ under- states of other physical observables. To investigate the standing of the possible outcomes of a measurement for a pervasiveness of this difficulty in distinguishing between given state of a particle in a 1D infinite square well when c ðxÞ c ðxÞ the eigenstates of different physical observables, one of the the measurement is performed. 1 and 2 are the multiple-choice questions administered to the students was ground state and first excited state wave functions. the following: c 1ðxÞþpffiffic 2ðxÞ An electron is in the state given by 2 . Which Choose all of the following statements that are one of the following outcomes could you obtain if you correct: measure the energy of the electron? (1) The stationary states refer to the eigenstates of any A. E1 þ E2 operator corresponding to a physical observable. B. ðE1 þ E2Þ=2 (2) If a system is in an eigenstate of any operator that C. Either E1 or E2 corresponds to a physical observable, it stays in that state D.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Unit 1 Old Quantum Theory
    UNIT 1 OLD QUANTUM THEORY Structure Introduction Objectives li;,:overy of Sub-atomic Particles Earlier Atom Models Light as clectromagnetic Wave Failures of Classical Physics Black Body Radiation '1 Heat Capacity Variation Photoelectric Effect Atomic Spectra Planck's Quantum Theory, Black Body ~diation. and Heat Capacity Variation Einstein's Theory of Photoelectric Effect Bohr Atom Model Calculation of Radius of Orbits Energy of an Electron in an Orbit Atomic Spectra and Bohr's Theory Critical Analysis of Bohr's Theory Refinements in the Atomic Spectra The61-y Summary Terminal Questions Answers 1.1 INTRODUCTION The ideas of classical mechanics developed by Galileo, Kepler and Newton, when applied to atomic and molecular systems were found to be inadequate. Need was felt for a theory to describe, correlate and predict the behaviour of the sub-atomic particles. The quantum theory, proposed by Max Planck and applied by Einstein and Bohr to explain different aspects of behaviour of matter, is an important milestone in the formulation of the modern concept of atom. In this unit, we will study how black body radiation, heat capacity variation, photoelectric effect and atomic spectra of hydrogen can be explained on the basis of theories proposed by Max Planck, Einstein and Bohr. They based their theories on the postulate that all interactions between matter and radiation occur in terms of definite packets of energy, known as quanta. Their ideas, when extended further, led to the evolution of wave mechanics, which shows the dual nature of matter
    [Show full text]
  • Quantum Mechanics in One Dimension
    Solved Problems on Quantum Mechanics in One Dimension Charles Asman, Adam Monahan and Malcolm McMillan Department of Physics and Astronomy University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada Fall 1999; revised 2011 by Malcolm McMillan Given here are solutions to 15 problems on Quantum Mechanics in one dimension. The solutions were used as a learning-tool for students in the introductory undergraduate course Physics 200 Relativity and Quanta given by Malcolm McMillan at UBC during the 1998 and 1999 Winter Sessions. The solutions were prepared in collaboration with Charles Asman and Adam Monaham who were graduate students in the Department of Physics at the time. The problems are from Chapter 5 Quantum Mechanics in One Dimension of the course text Modern Physics by Raymond A. Serway, Clement J. Moses and Curt A. Moyer, Saunders College Publishing, 2nd ed., (1997). Planck's Constant and the Speed of Light. When solving numerical problems in Quantum Mechanics it is useful to note that the product of Planck's constant h = 6:6261 × 10−34 J s (1) and the speed of light c = 2:9979 × 108 m s−1 (2) is hc = 1239:8 eV nm = 1239:8 keV pm = 1239:8 MeV fm (3) where eV = 1:6022 × 10−19 J (4) Also, ~c = 197:32 eV nm = 197:32 keV pm = 197:32 MeV fm (5) where ~ = h=2π. Wave Function for a Free Particle Problem 5.3, page 224 A free electron has wave function Ψ(x; t) = sin(kx − !t) (6) •Determine the electron's de Broglie wavelength, momentum, kinetic energy and speed when k = 50 nm−1.
    [Show full text]
  • Class 2: Operators, Stationary States
    Class 2: Operators, stationary states Operators In quantum mechanics much use is made of the concept of operators. The operator associated with position is the position vector r. As shown earlier the momentum operator is −iℏ ∇ . The operators operate on the wave function. The kinetic energy operator, T, is related to the momentum operator in the same way that kinetic energy and momentum are related in classical physics: p⋅ p (−iℏ ∇⋅−) ( i ℏ ∇ ) −ℏ2 ∇ 2 T = = = . (2.1) 2m 2 m 2 m The potential energy operator is V(r). In many classical systems, the Hamiltonian of the system is equal to the mechanical energy of the system. In the quantum analog of such systems, the mechanical energy operator is called the Hamiltonian operator, H, and for a single particle ℏ2 HTV= + =− ∇+2 V . (2.2) 2m The Schrödinger equation is then compactly written as ∂Ψ iℏ = H Ψ , (2.3) ∂t and has the formal solution iHt Ψ()r,t = exp − Ψ () r ,0. (2.4) ℏ Note that the order of performing operations is important. For example, consider the operators p⋅ r and r⋅ p . Applying the first to a wave function, we have (pr⋅) Ψ=−∇⋅iℏ( r Ψ=−) i ℏ( ∇⋅ rr) Ψ− i ℏ( ⋅∇Ψ=−) 3 i ℏ Ψ+( rp ⋅) Ψ (2.5) We see that the operators are not the same. Because the result depends on the order of performing the operations, the operator r and p are said to not commute. In general, the expectation value of an operator Q is Q=∫ Ψ∗ (r, tQ) Ψ ( r , td) 3 r .
    [Show full text]
  • On a Classical Limit for Electronic Degrees of Freedom That Satisfies the Pauli Exclusion Principle
    On a classical limit for electronic degrees of freedom that satisfies the Pauli exclusion principle R. D. Levine* The Fritz Haber Research Center for Molecular Dynamics, The Hebrew University, Jerusalem 91904, Israel; and Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of California, Los Angeles, CA 90095 Contributed by R. D. Levine, December 10, 1999 Fermions need to satisfy the Pauli exclusion principle: no two can taken into account, this starting point is not necessarily a be in the same state. This restriction is most compactly expressed limitation. There are at least as many orbitals (or, strictly in a second quantization formalism by the requirement that the speaking, spin orbitals) as there are electrons, but there can creation and annihilation operators of the electrons satisfy anti- easily be more orbitals than electrons. There are usually more commutation relations. The usual classical limit of quantum me- states than orbitals, and in the model of quantum dots that chanics corresponds to creation and annihilation operators that motivated this work, the number of spin orbitals is twice the satisfy commutation relations, as for a harmonic oscillator. We number of sites. For the example of 19 sites, there are 38 discuss a simple classical limit for Fermions. This limit is shown to spin-orbitals vs. 2,821,056,160 doublet states. correspond to an anharmonic oscillator, with just one bound The point of the formalism is that it ensures that the Pauli excited state. The vibrational quantum number of this anharmonic exclusion principle is satisfied, namely that no more than one oscillator, which is therefore limited to the range 0 to 1, is the electron occupies any given spin-orbital.
    [Show full text]
  • Wave Mechanics (PDF)
    WAVE MECHANICS B. Zwiebach September 13, 2013 Contents 1 The Schr¨odinger equation 1 2 Stationary Solutions 4 3 Properties of energy eigenstates in one dimension 10 4 The nature of the spectrum 12 5 Variational Principle 18 6 Position and momentum 22 1 The Schr¨odinger equation In classical mechanics the motion of a particle is usually described using the time-dependent position ix(t) as the dynamical variable. In wave mechanics the dynamical variable is a wave- function. This wavefunction depends on position and on time and it is a complex number – it belongs to the complex numbers C (we denote the real numbers by R). When all three dimensions of space are relevant we write the wavefunction as Ψ(ix, t) C . (1.1) ∈ When only one spatial dimension is relevant we write it as Ψ(x, t) C. The wavefunction ∈ satisfies the Schr¨odinger equation. For one-dimensional space we write ∂Ψ 2 ∂2 i (x, t) = + V (x, t) Ψ(x, t) . (1.2) ∂t −2m ∂x2 This is the equation for a (non-relativistic) particle of mass m moving along the x axis while acted by the potential V (x, t) R. It is clear from this equation that the wavefunction must ∈ be complex: if it were real, the right-hand side of (1.2) would be real while the left-hand side would be imaginary, due to the explicit factor of i. Let us make two important remarks: 1 1. The Schr¨odinger equation is a first order differential equation in time. This means that if we prescribe the wavefunction Ψ(x, t0) for all of space at an arbitrary initial time t0, the wavefunction is determined for all times.
    [Show full text]
  • The Time Evolution of a Wave Function
    The Time Evolution of a Wave Function ² A \system" refers to an electron in a potential energy well, e.g., an electron in a one-dimensional in¯nite square well. The system is speci¯ed by a given Hamiltonian. ² Assume all systems are isolated. ² Assume all systems have a time-independent Hamiltonian operator H^ . ² TISE and TDSE are abbreviations for the time-independent SchrÄodingerequation and the time- dependent SchrÄodingerequation, respectively. P ² The symbol in all questions denotes a sum over a complete set of states. PART A ² Information for questions (I)-(VI) In the following questions, an electron is in a one-dimensional in¯nite square well of width L. (The q 2 n2¼2¹h2 stationary states are Ãn(x) = L sin(n¼x=L), and the allowed energies are En = 2mL2 , where n = 1; 2; 3:::) p (I) Suppose the wave function for an electron at time t = 0 is given by Ã(x; 0) = 2=L sin(5¼x=L). Which one of the following is the wave function at time t? q 2 (a) Ã(x; t) = sin(5¼x=L) cos(E5t=¹h) qL 2 ¡iE5t=¹h (b) Ã(x; t) = L sin(5¼x=L) e (c) Both (a) and (b) above are appropriate ways to write the wave function. (d) None of the above. q 2 (II) The wave function for an electron at time t = 0 is given by Ã(x; 0) = L sin(5¼x=L). Which one of the following is true about the probability density, jÃ(x; t)j2, after time t? 2 2 2 2 (a) jÃ(x; t)j = L sin (5¼x=L) cos (E5t=¹h).
    [Show full text]
  • What Is a Photon? Foundations of Quantum Field Theory
    What is a Photon? Foundations of Quantum Field Theory C. G. Torre June 16, 2018 2 What is a Photon? Foundations of Quantum Field Theory Version 1.0 Copyright c 2018. Charles Torre, Utah State University. PDF created June 16, 2018 Contents 1 Introduction 5 1.1 Why do we need this course? . 5 1.2 Why do we need quantum fields? . 5 1.3 Problems . 6 2 The Harmonic Oscillator 7 2.1 Classical mechanics: Lagrangian, Hamiltonian, and equations of motion . 7 2.2 Classical mechanics: coupled oscillations . 8 2.3 The postulates of quantum mechanics . 10 2.4 The quantum oscillator . 11 2.5 Energy spectrum . 12 2.6 Position, momentum, and their continuous spectra . 15 2.6.1 Position . 15 2.6.2 Momentum . 18 2.6.3 General formalism . 19 2.7 Time evolution . 20 2.8 Coherent States . 23 2.9 Problems . 24 3 Tensor Products and Identical Particles 27 3.1 Definition of the tensor product . 27 3.2 Observables and the tensor product . 31 3.3 Symmetric and antisymmetric tensors. Identical particles. 32 3.4 Symmetrization and anti-symmetrization for any number of particles . 35 3.5 Problems . 36 4 Fock Space 38 4.1 Definitions . 38 4.2 Occupation numbers. Creation and annihilation operators. 40 4.3 Observables. Field operators. 43 4.3.1 1-particle observables . 43 4.3.2 2-particle observables . 46 4.3.3 Field operators and wave functions . 47 4.4 Time evolution of the field operators . 49 4.5 General formalism . 51 3 4 CONTENTS 4.6 Relation to the Hilbert space of quantum normal modes .
    [Show full text]
  • Stationary States in a Potential Well- H.C
    FUNDAMENTALS OF PHYSICS - Vol. II - Stationary States In A Potential Well- H.C. Rosu and J.L. Moran-Lopez STATIONARY STATES IN A POTENTIAL WELL H.C. Rosu and J.L. Moran-Lopez Instituto Potosino de Investigación Científica y Tecnológica, SLP, México Keywords: Stationary states, Bohr’s atomic model, Schrödinger equation, Rutherford’s planetary model, Frank-Hertz experiment, Infinite square well potential, Quantum harmonic oscillator, Wilson-Sommerfeld theory, Hydrogen atom Contents 1. Introduction 2. Stationary Orbits in Old Quantum Mechanics 2.1. Quantized Planetary Atomic Model 2.2. Bohr’s Hypotheses and Quantized Circular Orbits 2.3. From Quantized Circles to Elliptical Orbits 2.4. Experimental Proof of the Existence of Atomic Stationary States 3. Stationary States in Wave Mechanics 4. The Infinite Square Well: The Stationary States Most Resembling the Standing Waves on a String 3.1. The Schrödinger Equation 3.2. The Dynamical Phase 3.3. The Schrödinger Wave Stationarity 3.4. Stationary Schrödinger States and Classical Orbits 3.5. Stationary States as Sturm-Liouville Eigenfunctions 5. 1D Parabolic Well: The Stationary States of the Quantum Harmonic Oscillator 5.1. The Solution of the Schrödinger Equation 5.2. The Normalization Constant 5.3. Final Formulas for the HO Stationary States 5.4. The Algebraic Approach: Creation and Annihilation Operators 5.5. HO Spectrum Obtained from Wilson-Sommerfeld Quantization Condition 6. The 3D Coulomb Well: The Stationary States of the Hydrogen Atom 6.1. The Separation of Variables in Spherical Coordinates 6.2. The Angular Separation Constants as Quantum Numbers 6.3. Polar andUNESCO Azimuthal Solutions Set Together – EOLSS 6.4.
    [Show full text]
  • Spectroscopy Minneapolis Community and Technical College V.10.17
    Spectroscopy Minneapolis Community and Technical College v.10.17 Objective: To observe, measure and compare line spectra from various elements and to determine the energies of those electronic transitions within atoms that produce lines in a line spectrum. Prelab Questions: Read through this lab handout and answer the following questions before coming to lab. There will be a quiz at the beginning of lab over this handout and its contents. 1. How does the spacing of stationary states change as n increases? 2. For the hydrogen atom, why isn’t light produced by the n = 3 → n = 1 electron transition visible to the eye? 3. How does the energy of an n = 3 → 2 electronic transition compare to the energy of a 2 → 1 transition? 4. What is the meaning of ROY G BIV? 5. What are the meanings of the terms “absorbed” and “transmitted.” 6. How is an emission spectrum different from an absorption spectrum? 7. What is a spectroscope? 8. Where does light enter the spectroscope? 9. What is the wavelength of the spectral line displayed in the figure at right? 10. Calculate the energy corresponding to hydrogen’s n = 1 stationary state. The Bohr Atom, Stationary States and Electron Energies Bohr’s theory of the atom locates electrons within an atom in discrete “stationary states” . The “n” quantum number identifies each stationary state with a positive integer between 1 and infinity (). Larger n values correspond to larger electron orbits about the nucleus. Stationary states energies are described using a potential energy ladder diagram at right. Electrons are forbidden from having energies between stationary states.
    [Show full text]
  • Harmonic Oscillator Physics
    Physics 342 Lecture 9 Harmonic Oscillator Physics Lecture 9 Physics 342 Quantum Mechanics I Friday, February 12th, 2010 For the harmonic oscillator potential in the time-independent Schr¨odinger equation: 2 1 2 d (x) 2 2 2 −~ + m ! x (x) = E (x); (9.1) 2 m dx2 we found a ground state 2 − m ! x 0(x) = A e 2 ~ (9.2) 1 with energy E0 = 2 ~ !. Using the raising and lowering operators 1 a+ = p (−i p + m ! x) 2 m ! ~ (9.3) 1 a− = p (i p + m ! x); 2 ~ m ! we found we could construct additional solutions with increasing energy using a+, and we could take a state at a particular energy E and construct solutions with lower energy using a−. The existence of a minimum energy state ensured that no solutions could have negative energy and was used to define 1: 0 n 1 n a− 0 = 0 H (a+ 0) = + n ~ ! a+ 0: (9.4) 2 The operators a+ and a− are Hermitian conjugates of one another { for any 1I am leaving the \hats" off, from here on { we understand that H represents a differ- ` ~ @ ´ ential operator given by H x; i @x for a classical Hamiltonian. 1 of 10 9.1. NORMALIZATION Lecture 9 f(x) and g(x) (vanishing at spatial infinity), the inner product: Z 1 Z 1 ∗ ∗ @g(x) f(x) a± g(x) dx = f(x) ∓~ + m ! x g(x) dx −∞ −∞ @x Z 1 ∗ @f(x) ∗ = ±~ g(x) + f(x) m ! x g(x) dx −∞ @x Z 1 ∗ = (a∓ f(x)) g(x) dx; −∞ (9.5) (integration by parts) or, in words, we can \act on g(x) with a± or act on f(x) with a∓" in the inner product.
    [Show full text]
  • CYK\2010\PH405+PH213\Tutorial 5 Quantum Mechanics 1. Find Allowed Energies of the Half Harmonic Oscillator 2. a Charged Particle
    CYK\2010\PH405+PH213\Tutorial 5 Quantum Mechanics 1. Find allowed energies of the half harmonic oscillator ( 1 m!2x2; x > 0; V (x) = 2 1; x < 0: 2. A charged particle (mass m, charge q) is moving in a simple harmonic potential (frequency !=2π). In addition, an external electric eld E0 is also present. Write down the hamiltonian of this particle. Find the energy eigenvalues, eigenfunctions. Find the average position of the particle, when it is in one of the stationary states. 3. Assume that the atoms in a CO molecule are held together by a spring. The spacing between the lines of the spectrum of CO molecule is 2170 cm−1. Estimate the spring constant. 4. If the hermite polynomials Hn(x) are dened using the generating function G(x; s) = exp −s2 + 2xs, that is X Hn(x) exp −s2 + 2xs = sn; n! n (a) Show that the Hermite polynomials obey the dierential equation 00 0 Hn(x) − 2xHn(x) + 2nHn(x) = 0 and the recurrence relation Hn+1(x) = 2xHn(x) − 2nHn−1(x): (b) Derive Rodrigues' formula n 2 d 2 H (x) = (−1)n ex e−x : n dxn 5. Let φn be the nth stationary state of a particle in harmonic oscillator potential. Given that the lowering operator is 1 a^ = p m!X^ + iP^ : 2~m! p and ξ = m!=~x, (a) show that 1 d a^ = p ξ + : 2 dξ (b) Show that p aφ^ n(ξ) = nφn−1(ξ) 6. Let B = fφn j n = 0; 1;:::g be the set of energy eigenfunctions of the harmonic oscillator.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix 5: Time-Energy Uncertainty
    Appendix 6: Time-Energy Uncertainty (so called) The Generalized Uncertainty Principle applied to the Hamiltonian operator Hˆ and the generic operator Oˆ says that æ i ö 2 s 2s 2 ³ ç Hˆ ,Oˆ ÷ . (A6.1) H O è 2i [ ] ø If Oˆ does not depend explicitly on time, we can write the general form of the Ehrenfest Theorem as h ¶ < O >= [Hˆ ,Oˆ ] . (A6.2) i ¶t By plugging it into the previous equation, we obtain 2 2 2 2 2 æ i h ¶ ö æ hö æ ¶ ö s H sO ³ ç < O >÷ = ç ÷ ç < O >÷ . (A6.3) è 2i i ¶t ø è 2ø è ¶t ø Since standard deviation is always positive, we have æ hö ¶ s HsO ³ ç ÷ < O > . (A6.4) è 2ø ¶t Now let us set d s = < O >Dt , (A6.5) O dt where Dt is a time interval. Hence, s Dt = O .1 (A6.6) d < O > dt d 1 To see what this formula means, consider this. When Dt =1, thens = < O > , that O dt is, the rate of change of the expectation value is one standard deviation; when Dt = 2 , 420 By plugging this into the previous equation, we obtain h s H Dt ³ , (A6.7) 2 the Time-Energy Uncertainty Principle (TEUP). The name is misleading because Dt is not the standard deviation of an ensemble of time measurements (there is no operator for time because time is not an observable), but the amount of time < O > takes to change by O’s standard deviation. TEUP tells us that in an ensemble the smaller s H (the standard deviation of the Hamiltonian of the system, that is, its energy), the larger Dt must be.
    [Show full text]