Pretty simple problem I thought.

  • Thread starter Thread starter land
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around determining conditions for the potential energy function of a particle defined in a piecewise manner, specifically focusing on a semi-infinite square well. The user seeks to find conditions on V0 and b to ensure no bound stationary states exist and then to achieve exactly three stationary states. They express uncertainty about the relationship between V0 and the existence of stationary states, suspecting that V0 must be less than zero for no states to exist. The user attempts to derive wave equations for different regions but struggles with continuity conditions at the boundaries. Clarification is sought on how a potential well can lack stationary states, indicating a need for deeper understanding of quantum mechanics principles.
land
Messages
31
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



The potential energy of a particle is defined by the piecewise function:

V(x) = infinity if x<0
V(x) = -V0 if 0<x<b
V(x) = 0 if x>b

So it's like a square well with one side being infinite. I need to find the condition on V0 and b so that no bound stationary states exist, then for there to be exactly three stationary states.

Homework Equations



Uh.. not sure. For a regular square well, I have that if V0 > 0 there is at least one stationary state. So for there to be none, V0 has to be less than zero? But this isn't quite the same as a square well.

The Attempt at a Solution



See above. I also know that each stationary state must have a node at x=0. I just don't know how to put all this together..
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
OK... could really use some help on this one. I thought if I started with the individual wave equations, I could figure it out. So for what I'm calling Region I, 0<x<b, I came up with \Psi=C_I^+cos[\sqrt{2m(V_0-\epsilon)}(\frac{x}{\hbar}})]+C_I^-sin[\sqrt{2m(V_0-\epsilon)}(\frac{x}{\hbar})], and for region II, x>b, \Psi=C_{II}e^{-\sqrt{2m\epsilon}(\frac{x}{\hbar}), where epsilon is the binding energy. I'm doing this based on the assumption that it's like a regular square well, so I have no idea if that's right or not. Now before I can impose the condition that there is no node at x=0, it seems like I should figure out the constants. To do that I tried to impose that the wavefunctions and their derivative are continuous at x=b.. but that still leaves you with 2 equations and 3 unknowns, so it can't be solved yet.

A nudge in the right direction (or even an acknowledgment that I'm totally wrong) would be much appreciated.
 
Hm.. could it be that I'm not explaining the problem clearly enough? Let me know if so. I tried to draw something to post here but it's sort of confusing. It's just a semi-infinite square well, as nearly as I can tell.. but I really think I'm doing this wrong.
 
let me rephrase.. how can it be that there are no stationary states in a potential well? i think if i can understand that, the rest of it will be easy.
 
Your wavefunction should vanish at x=0. There may be fewer constants than you think. Nudge.
 
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