Register to reply

Solving schrodinger, reflection coefficient

by SoggyBottoms
Tags: coefficient, reflection, schrodinger, solving
Share this thread:
SoggyBottoms
#1
Mar7-12, 11:39 PM
P: 61
Consider the potential

[tex]
V(x) =
\begin{cases}
0, & x < -a & (I) \\
+W, & -a < x < a & (II) \\
0, & x > a & (III)
\end{cases}
[/tex]

for a particle coming in from the left ([itex]-\infty[/itex]) with energy E (0 < E < W). Give the solution to the Schrodinger equation for I, II and III and use these to calculate the reflection coefficient.

I have the answer to this problem in front of me, but I don't understand. First they calculate the solution to the Schrodinger equation for I, II and III:

[itex]\psi_I(x) = Ae^{ikx} + Be^{-ikx}, \ \mbox{with} \ k = \frac{\sqrt{2mE}}{\hbar}[/itex]

[itex]\psi_{II}(x) = Ce^{\kappa x} + De^{-\kappa x}, \ \mbox{with} \ \kappa = \frac{\sqrt{2m(E - W)}}{\hbar}[/itex]

[itex]\psi_{III}(x) = Fe^{i k x}, \ \mbox{with} \ k = \frac{\sqrt{2mE}}{\hbar}[/itex]

I understand [itex]\psi_I[/itex], but not [itex]\psi_{II}[/itex] and [itex]\psi_{III}[/itex]. Why is there no i in [itex]\psi_{II}[/itex]? And why is [itex]\psi_{III}[/itex] only a single term? I imagine it has something to do with the particle coming from the left?
Phys.Org News Partner Physics news on Phys.org
Refocusing research into high-temperature superconductors
Neutron tomography technique reveals phase fractions of crystalline materials in 3-dimensions
Tiny magnets, huge fields: Nanoscale ferromagnetic electrodes create chemical equivalent of solid-state spin valve
Nabeshin
#2
Mar8-12, 12:30 AM
Sci Advisor
Nabeshin's Avatar
P: 2,193
Quote Quote by SoggyBottoms View Post
Why is there no i in [itex]\psi_{II}[/itex]?
Because these are classically forbidden solutions, and the probability of the particle being found in such a region exponentially decays.

And why is [itex]\psi_{III}[/itex] only a single term? I imagine it has something to do with the particle coming from the left?
Correct, the other term would represent some particle coming in from the right (which is usually not assumed).
SoggyBottoms
#3
Mar8-12, 10:31 AM
P: 61
Quote Quote by Nabeshin View Post
Because these are classically forbidden solutions, and the probability of the particle being found in such a region exponentially decays.
If I were to solve the equation for II, then [itex]Ce^{i \kappa x} + De^{-i \kappa x}[/itex] is mathematically still a valid solution right? I don't understand why it is not allowed.

Quote Quote by Nabeshin View Post
Correct, the other term would represent some particle coming in from the right (which is usually not assumed).
But why do I and II have two terms if the second term represents a particle coming from the right? Shouldn't they have only one term too then?

Nabeshin
#4
Mar8-12, 05:31 PM
Sci Advisor
Nabeshin's Avatar
P: 2,193
Solving schrodinger, reflection coefficient

Quote Quote by SoggyBottoms View Post
If I were to solve the equation for II, then [itex]Ce^{i \kappa x} + De^{-i \kappa x}[/itex] is mathematically still a valid solution right? I don't understand why it is not allowed.
Nope. You should go through and solve why these are the solutions here, but essentially you have something like (don't quote me exactly on this) [itex]\kappa \sim \sqrt{E-V}[/itex] So in the regions I and III, V=0 and this is real and fine. But in the region where V=V0>E, this is imaginary, which is why the thing you would normally write, e^(i*k*x), goes to e^(-kx) (Where now k in this expression is understood to be the real part). [I think there is a typo in what you wrote somewhere, and the sign inside your definition of kappa should be switched so that it is by definition real]


But why do I and II have two terms if the second term represents a particle coming from the right? Shouldn't they have only one term too then?
In region I, the term moving to the left represents the reflected wave off of the barrier between regions I/II. In region II, similarly, the term moving to the left represents the reflected wave off the barrier between II/III.
SoggyBottoms
#5
Mar8-12, 11:36 PM
P: 61
Thanks!


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Two definitions of wave reflection coefficient Classical Physics 0
Reflection coefficient (osmosis) General Physics 4
Reflection coefficient of step potential Quantum Physics 2
Value of Voltage Reflection Coefficient Electrical Engineering 2
Reflection coefficient at a copper boundary Advanced Physics Homework 2