What Are the Solutions to the 1D Infinite Square Well from -a/2 to +a/2?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on solving the one-dimensional infinite square well problem with potential boundaries at -a/2 and +a/2. It confirms that the wave functions will exhibit the same parity characteristics as those in a well extending from 0 to +a, with the potential being infinite outside these boundaries. The participant encounters an issue with the wave function for the E_1 state, mistakenly concluding it equals zero at x=0, which leads to an incorrect result of A=0. The problem is identified as an integration error, and a recommendation is made to use an online integral calculator for assistance. The conversation emphasizes the importance of correctly applying boundary conditions and integration techniques in quantum mechanics problems.
siifuthun
Messages
24
Reaction score
0
I think I'm on the right track for this problem, but I'm not entirely sure.

Find the solutions to the one-dimensional infinite square well when the potential extends from -a/2 to +a/2 instead of 0 to +a. Is the potential invariant with respect to parity? Are the wave functions? Discuss the assignment off odd and even parity to the solution

So the wave functions should look the same as if it was an infinite square well going from 0 to +a, except it's going from -a/2 to a/2, so the parity should be exactly the same, right? V(x) = infinity at x< -a/2 and when x> a/2.

So I tried solving for the Schrodinger equation using:

http://img145.imageshack.us/img145/4013/03bp1.jpg

And we know that at -a/2 and a/2, the wavefunction must be equal to 0. We also know that for energy level E_1, where n=2, there's a node right at x=0, so the wavefunction must also equal 0 at x = 0 for that case. So:

http://img174.imageshack.us/img174/4408/04ya7.jpg

So we know from above that B=0, plugging that into equation we get:

http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/5520/05ep7.jpg

Now here's my problem, when I try to solve this, I get:

http://img170.imageshack.us/img170/5769/06vs2.jpg

Which is a problem, since it means A=0. Am I wrong in my assumption that the wavefunction for E_1 state is 0 at x=0?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
There might be a problem with the last statement of E_1 state is 0 at x=0
.
Why do you think that is so?
 
Last edited:
Problem with integration

I finally managed to find out what the heck it was. There is a problem with the integration of the function. Try using http://integrals.wolfram.com/index.jsp. Very useful mathematical program.
 
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