Kinetic Energy of particle in 1D and 3D well

PsychonautQQ
Messages
781
Reaction score
10
So my professor said that the Kinetic energy of the particle in a 3D infinite well is dependent on position where in a 1D infinite well it's NOT dependent on position. She is sort of notorious for being wrong apparently and many of my undergrads are telling me she is wrong.

I understand that in a one dimensional infinite well the wavelength will be well defined so the energy will be well defined and constant everywhere, but in a 3D infinite well where the ratio of n/L for each dimension (x,y,z) are not equal to each other, therefore the wavelength of in the x y and z direction will be different and when you combine the wavefunctions to get the surface that fits the given dimensions of the well, the wavelength won't be well defined so it seems energy of the particle won't be well defined either...

where is my thinking wrong/right??
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I don't know what you professor means, but the kinetic energy is usually understood as its average value over the wave function. Therefore it cannot be dependent on position since the definition of average value itself requires an integration over the coordinates of the wave function.
 
PsychonautQQ said:
So my professor said that the Kinetic energy of the particle in a 3D infinite well is dependent on position where in a 1D infinite well it's NOT dependent on position. She is sort of notorious for being wrong apparently and many of my undergrads are telling me she is wrong.
She is wrong.

PsychonautQQ said:
I understand that in a one dimensional infinite well the wavelength will be well defined so the energy will be well defined and constant everywhere, but in a 3D infinite well where the ratio of n/L for each dimension (x,y,z) are not equal to each other, therefore the wavelength of in the x y and z direction will be different and when you combine the wavefunctions to get the surface that fits the given dimensions of the well, the wavelength won't be well defined so it seems energy of the particle won't be well defined either...
The wavelengths in the x, y, z directions give the three components of the momentum, px, py, pz, The momentum p of the particle is the magnitude of the momentum vector, given by p2 = px2 + py2 + pz2, and this is independent of position.
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
Not an expert in QM. AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is quite different from the classical wave equation. The former is an equation for the dynamics of the state of a (quantum?) system, the latter is an equation for the dynamics of a (classical) degree of freedom. As a matter of fact, Schrödinger's equation is first order in time derivatives, while the classical wave equation is second order. But, AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is a wave equation; only its interpretation makes it non-classical...
According to recent podcast between Jacob Barandes and Sean Carroll, Barandes claims that putting a sensitive qubit near one of the slits of a double slit interference experiment is sufficient to break the interference pattern. Here are his words from the official transcript: Is that true? Caveats I see: The qubit is a quantum object, so if the particle was in a superposition of up and down, the qubit can be in a superposition too. Measuring the qubit in an orthogonal direction might...

Similar threads

Back
Top