Simplifying Continuity Condition in Delta Potential

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter cepheid
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Delta Potential
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around solving the time-independent Schrödinger Equation for a particle in a delta potential, specifically focusing on the continuity condition at the boundary of the potential. Participants explore methods to simplify the expressions involving wave function coefficients in different regions to facilitate normalization.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents the continuity condition \(\psi(a^-) = \psi(a^+)\) leading to the equation \(Ce^{\kappa a} + De^{-\kappa a} = Ge^{-\kappa a}\) and seeks simplification.
  • Another participant questions the absence of position dependency in the exponentials and suggests that the relation should hold at \(x=0\), leading to \(C + D = G\), and emphasizes the need for continuity in the first derivatives as well.
  • A participant proposes translating the potential well to simplify the problem, suggesting that setting \(a\) to zero could help.
  • One participant clarifies that the potential is a Dirac delta function at \(x=a\) and expresses a desire for a simpler overall solution for \(\psi(x)\).
  • Another participant states that further simplification of the boundary condition is not possible without translating to \(a=0\) and suggests factoring terms to express \(C\) in terms of \(G\) and \(D\).
  • A participant emphasizes the need for two boundary conditions: one for wave function continuity and another for the derivative at \(x=a\), proposing an integration of the Schrödinger equation to derive the necessary conditions.
  • A later reply indicates that the participant has made progress after integrating the Schrödinger equation, suggesting a resolution to their earlier confusion.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the simplification of the boundary conditions and the necessity of translating the potential. While some agree on the need for boundary conditions, there is no consensus on the best approach to simplify the expressions or the implications of the delta potential.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the potential dependency on the position variable \(x\) in the exponentials, the need for clarity on boundary conditions, and the unresolved mathematical steps in deriving the wave function and energy.

cepheid
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Messages
5,197
Reaction score
38
Hello,

While solving the time-independent Schrödinger Equation for a particle in a certain delta potential, I have reached the point where I am trying to satisfy the continuity condition:

[tex]\psi(a^-) = \psi(a^+)[/tex]

Which has lead me to:

[tex]Ce^{\kappa a} + De^{-\kappa a} = Ge^{-\kappa a}[/tex]

I'm just wondering what (if anything) should I do to simplify this? I have to get a handle on these coefficients in the different regions so that I can normalize later. Note [tex]\inline a>0[/tex].
 
Physics news on Phys.org
cepheid said:
Hello,

While solving the time-independent Schrödinger Equation for a particle in a certain delta potential, I have reached the point where I am trying to satisfy the continuity condition:

[tex]\psi(a^-) = \psi(a^+)[/tex]

Which has lead me to:

[tex]Ce^{\kappa a} + De^{-\kappa a} = Ge^{-\kappa a}[/tex]

I'm just wondering what (if anything) should I do to simplify this? I have to get a handle on these coefficients in the different regions so that I can normalize later. Note [tex]\inline a>0[/tex].


Are you sure there is no dependency on x (position) in them exponentials? Because normally there should be. Then due to the demand that the wave functions are continuous, one states that the relation is valid for x=0 at the boundary of the potentialwell. Then we have C+D=G
One must do the same for the first derivatives of the wave functions with the same continuity-condition at x=0

Out of these numbers d,C,... one then calculates the transmission and reflection coefficients

regards
marlon
 
In order to get rid of those a's, you perform a translation of the well so that a becomes zero


just an addendum

marlon
 
It's not a potential well...the potential is given by a dirac delta function at x=a. I'm just trying to simplify that expression so that when I write the overall solution for [tex]\inline \psi (x)[/tex], it's as simple as possible.
 
Unfortunately no further simplification can be made to your boundary condition, unless you're willing to perform the translation to a=0. The best you can do is to factor out a term and get something like:

[tex]Ce^{2 \kappa a} + D = G[/tex]

Then you can, eg, solve for C in terms of G and D (which is the cleanest way to proceed) and impose your other BC's or normalization equations.
 
cepheid said:
It's not a potential well...the potential is given by a dirac delta function at x=a. I'm just trying to simplify that expression so that when I write the overall solution for [tex]\inline \psi (x)[/tex], it's as simple as possible.

i know. That is what I meant : inverse potential well or potential barrier

regards
marlon

just perform the translation of the barrier to x=0
 
you need two boundary conditions, one for the wave function continuity at x = a and one for the derivative of the wave function at a. To get the continuity equation for the derivative, integrate Schrodingers equation. You should get something like this:

[tex]\frac{d\Psi(x)}{dx}|_{a+}-\frac{d\Psi(x)}{dx}|_{a-} = \Psi(a)[/tex]

from there you should be able to find the wave function and then the corresponding energy. also remember that the wave function dies off at infinity, and is exponential in nature, i.e. no factor of [tex]i[/tex].

dt
 
Last edited:
^^^Yes...

...that's exactly what dawned upon me today and I am now able to continue with the problem after having integrated Schrödinger's equation. Thank you all for your help!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
4K