Finding Exact and WKB Wavefunction for V(x) in E=10 Situation

  • Thread starter Thread starter JamesJames
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Wkb
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around finding the exact and WKB wavefunction for a particle in a potential defined as V(x) = βx for x ≥ 0 and V(x) = 0 for x < 0, specifically for the case where the energy E = 10, with parameters set to unity.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the form of the Schrödinger equation and the application of the WKB approximation. There are questions about the definition of k and the correct formulation of the equations involved. Some participants are clarifying the relationship between the potential and energy terms.

Discussion Status

The discussion is ongoing, with participants providing insights into the mathematical formulation and questioning the assumptions made regarding the potential and energy terms. There is no explicit consensus yet, but several lines of reasoning are being explored.

Contextual Notes

Participants are navigating potential misunderstandings regarding the signs in the Schrödinger equation and the definitions of variables used in the WKB approximation. There is an emphasis on ensuring clarity in the mathematical expressions being discussed.

JamesJames
Messages
204
Reaction score
0
Consider the potential
V(x) = [tex]\beta x[/tex] for x [tex]\geq\ 0[/tex]
V(x) = 0 for x < 0.

Find the exact and WKB wavefunction for the situation where a particle has
E = 10 in units where [tex]\beta = \hbar = m = 1[/tex].

Any suggestions guys?
James
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
For x > 0 you are looking for approximate solutions of an equation having this form:

[tex]\frac {d^2 y}{dx^2} + k^2\left(1-\frac {\beta x}{E_0}\right) y = 0[/tex]

which will be of the form

[tex]e^{\pm i \frac {2}{3} k\left(1-\frac {\beta x}{E_0}\right)^{\frac {3}{2}}[/tex]

which is valid for x not close to [itex]E_0 / \beta[/itex].
 
Ok, what are you calling k because here is what I would think the Shrodinger equation is
[tex] \frac {d^2 y}{dx^2} + \beta x y = E_0 y[/tex]

And is that the WKB solution?
 
Last edited:
Yes, I abbreviated k and just gave the form of the equation. I think your signs are reversed on the [itex]\beta[/itex] and [itex]E_0[/itex] terms.

Your equation is actually a variant of the Airy differential equation but the point of your problem is to use the WKB approximation which essentially says that the solution of equations like

[tex]\frac {d^2 y}{dx^2} + k^2(x) y = 0[/tex]

are approximately of the form

[tex]e^{\pm i \int^x k(x') dx'}[/itex]<br /> <br /> I'm being a little sloppy here but you can read more here http://www.du.edu/~jcalvert/phys/wkb.htm (and in lots of other places including your textbook!)[/tex]
 
I thought that this is the form of the SE...[tex]\frac {d^2 y}{dx^2} + V(x) y = E y[/tex]

So subbing in [tex]\beta x y[/tex] for the potential, I think the signs are rigt.
I just don' t see how to get
[tex]\frac {d^2 y}{dx^2} + k^2\left(1-\frac {\beta x}{E_0}\right) y = 0[/tex] :confused:

Also what is the k that goes in your integral? Shouldn 't it be
[tex]\beta x y[/tex] - E ?
 
No, you have the signs reversed on the E and V terms in the Schrödinger equation. I used [itex]k^2 = \frac {2m}{\hbar^2}(E - V)[/itex]
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K