Schrodinger's Equation - Step Potential

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the application of Schrödinger's equation to a step potential barrier, specifically focusing on the acceptable solutions for a particle with total energy E less than the potential V. Participants explore the forms of wave functions on either side of the barrier, the relationships between coefficients, and the implications for reflection and transmission coefficients.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that the acceptable solutions on the left side of the barrier can be expressed as a combination of cosine and sine functions, while others suggest using complex exponentials.
  • There is a discussion about the expressions for coefficients A and B in terms of a third coefficient C, with specific forms given as A = C/2 (1 + iq/p) and B = C/2 (1 - iq/p).
  • Concerns are raised about the normalization condition, specifically whether |A|² + |B|² equals 1, with some participants questioning the physical justification for this requirement.
  • Participants mention the need to consider probability currents and the definitions of transmission and reflection coefficients, with formulas provided for T and R.
  • One participant asserts that the sum of the square moduli of the transmission and reflection coefficients must equal 1, implying that any discrepancy indicates a calculation error.
  • Another participant suggests that the problem is straightforward and can be found in any quantum mechanics text, indicating a belief that the discussion may be overly complicated.
  • A later reply references an external thread for additional context, although it notes that the referenced posts pertain to a different energy condition (E > V).

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the acceptable forms of wave functions and the implications of their coefficients. There is no consensus on the normalization condition or the physical justification for the requirements discussed, indicating ongoing debate.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved assumptions regarding the definitions of the coefficients and the conditions under which the normalization holds. The discussion also reflects varying interpretations of the mathematical expressions involved.

irony of truth
Messages
89
Reaction score
0
In the left side of the barrier, the potential energy V(x)= 0, while on the right side of the barrier, V(x) = V. Given that the total energy of the particle in such a system has a total energy E < V..

a. What are my acceptable solutions?
On the left side:

Should I include the cos kx and sin kx alone?

b. How do I show that /A/ + /B/ = 1? Are these absolute values of the expressions A and B or /A/ = A*A and /B/ = B*B?

I got A = C/2 (1 + iq/p) and B = C/2 ( 1 - iq/p)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
On the lest side,it's just a combination of complex exponentials...What do you mean "include ...alone"...?

As for the second,i assume you refer to the coefficients of reflection & transmission.Great.But please,use this CORRECT expression:
[tex]A^{*}A=|A|^{2}[/tex]

I don't know who "C" is.Could you be more specific...?

Daniel.
 
Hello sir...

what I meant about cos px and sin px (not k) alone is that there are 3 solutions... first is that expression A cos px + B sin px, second is cosp x and third is sin px on the left side of the barrier... the right side involves only e^(-qx).

Hmm... I am referring to my 2 general solutions A cos px + B sin px ( or Ae^(ipx) + Be^(-ipx) ) and Ce^(-px) using then the continuity requirements... I imposed the \psi(x) and the first derivative of \psi at x = 0.

Thus resulting to A + B = C and ipA - ipb = -qC

then I tried to find the expressions of A and B in terms of C.. which are A = C/2 (1 + iq/p) and B = C/2 ( 1 - iq/p) respectively.

But I don't know why [tex]A^{*}A=|A|^{2}[/tex] + [tex]B^{*}B=|B|^{2}[/tex] don't equal to one?
 
irony of truth said:
Hello sir...

what I meant about cos px and sin px (not k) alone is that there are 3 solutions... first is that expression A cos px + B sin px, second is cosp x and third is sin px on the left side of the barrier... the right side involves only e^(-qx).

Hmm... I am referring to my 2 general solutions A cos px + B sin px ( or Ae^(ipx) + Be^(-ipx) ) and Ce^(-px) using then the continuity requirements... I imposed the \psi(x) and the first derivative of \psi at x = 0.

Thus resulting to A + B = C and ipA - ipb = -qC

then I tried to find the expressions of A and B in terms of C.. which are A = C/2 (1 + iq/p) and B = C/2 ( 1 - iq/p) respectively.

But I don't know why [tex]A^{*}A=|A|^{2}[/tex] + [tex]B^{*}B=|B|^{2}[/tex] don't equal to one?

Why would they...?What' the physical justification behind your requirement...? :bugeye:
Now,that u've managed to express 2 coefficients in terms of a third,u can resort to the definition of the probablilty currents and transmission and reflection coefficients...

Isn't this what you're looking for,or what else...?

Daniel.
 
So I will not add both A = C/2 (1 + iq/p) and B = C/2 ( 1 - iq/p) then.

I got this T = 4(q/p)/(1 + iq/p)^2 and R = /(1 - iq/p) / (1 + iq/p)/^2 ...

My problem is here is that will they add up to 1?
 
In square modulus,they MUST,viz.

[tex]|T|^{2}+|R|^{2}=1[/tex]

Else,it would mean your calculations are incorrect.

Daniel.
 
Any, I repeat any QM text does this problem. It will be spelled out right in front of your eyes if you simply take the trouble to read. We are not talking rocket science here, just very basic stuff.
Regards,
Reilly Atkinson
 
to irony of truth

Hi, I'm just passing through, and I don't have much time (just enough to quickly browse).

If you are still having some questions, irony of truth, you may want to look at the thread below, in particular posts #2 and #10:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=36076

If look, I hope it helps. :smile:
________

EDIT:
... oops! :blushing:
I see you're looking at the E < V case. My posts were for E > V.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K