![]() |
|
|
#1 |
|
Dec 2003
Hopefully Near M48
2·3·293 Posts |
This question came up in quantum mechanics. Basically, it is the last step in an attempted proof that a 1-D system can never have degeneracy.
Let Show that [Admittedly, this question has a flaw in the case when Intuitively, my guess is that Any hints please? Last fiddled with by jinydu on 2008-03-27 at 19:45 |
|
|
|
|
|
#2 | |
|
Bamboozled!
"𒉺𒌌𒇷𒆷ð’€"
May 2003
Down not across
2×5,393 Posts |
Quote:
It's a long time since I last did any quantum mechanics but I don't remember any such prohibition. Consider an ensemble of bosons confined to one spatial dimension (a reasonable approximation to the intracavity state of a laser). I can't see any reason why they can't all populate the ground state or, for that matter, any other state. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your use of the term "1-D system". Paul |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Jul 2003
wear a mask
32148 Posts |
Doh! nevermind...
Last fiddled with by masser on 2008-03-27 at 21:34 |
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
∂2ω=0
Sep 2002
República de California
19·613 Posts |
The following may need to be tweaked a little because I just noticed that the definition of Psi2 involves the integral of 1/Psi1^2 for 0 to x [rather than over the whole real line], but I think the approach is sound:
Let |.| be shorthand for "norm"; in your example specifically the L^2 norm as defined over the real line. We have f(x) such that |f| = 1. Let g(x) = 1/f(x). From the definition of your space, we see that |f*g| = |1| [* means simple scalar multiply here] is not normalizable, since the integral of a nonzero constant over the real line diverges. By the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, |f*g| <= |f|*|g|. Since |f| = 1 and |f*g| diverges, |g| diverges as well, i.e. |g| = |1/f| is not normalizable. Now consider h(x) = C*f(x), with C := |1/f| = |g|. Taking the norm of both sides, we have |h| = |C*f| = ||g|*f|. |g| [even though it diverges] is just a constant, so can be pulled out, thus |h| = |g|*|f| = |g|, which diverges. QED |
|
|
|
|
|
#5 | |
|
Dec 2003
Hopefully Near M48
6DE16 Posts |
Indeed. I meant a 1-D system with 1 particle.
Basically, the equation for Quote:
Also, in the definition of But thanks for trying. EDIT: On second thought, I might need a stronger result than simply showing that Here is the overall outline of the argument. Any stationary state of a 1-particle 1-D quantum system satisfies the time-independent Schrodinger equation: The goal is to show that for any fixed value of Using reduction of order, I already know what Last fiddled with by jinydu on 2008-03-27 at 23:06 |
|
|
|
|