A 1D Quantum Well - Different width "naming" gives different result ?

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the differences in wavefunction results for a one-dimensional quantum well based on varying boundary conditions. In the first case, the wavefunction is derived from boundaries at -L/2 to L/2, leading to an imaginary component due to the factor of 'i' in the sine function. In the second case, with boundaries from 0 to L, the wavefunction remains real and is expressed solely in terms of sine functions. Despite these differences, normalization of the wavefunctions shows that they can represent the same physical state, as they differ only by a complex factor. Ultimately, the key takeaway is that while the forms of the wavefunctions may differ, they can yield equivalent physical interpretations when properly normalized.
Solmyros
Messages
21
Reaction score
0
TL;DR
Boundary conditions give different result depending on whether the quantum well is defined from 0 to L or from -L/2 to +L/2.
Greetings everyone,

Exactly as the title says. I am reaching to something strange and I do not know what I am missing. It must be something obvious...

case 1: -L/2 to L/2

After taking the Schrodinger equation and considering potential equal to zero inside we reach at this: $$Ψ=A×e^{ikz}+B×e^{- ikz}$$
case 1.png

Boundary conditions
Outside the well the potential is assumed infinite, so the wavefunction is equal to zero:
  • $$\Psi = 0, when \left|{z}\right|>\frac{L}{2}$$
  • $$Ψ(−\frac{L}{2})=0 \ (1)$$
  • $$Ψ(+\frac{L}{2})=0 \ (2)$$
From 1. we have : $$B=−A×e^{−ikL} \ (3)$$

Substituting (3) in 2. we get: $$k=\frac{n \times \pi}{L}, where \ n=0,1,2,... (4)$$

Therefore from (3) we get: $$B=−A \times e^{−inπ}$$

And finally, if $$n=2m, where \ m=0,1,2,...$$ we get from the original Schrodinger Equation: $$\Psi_{even}(z) = A \times ( e^{i k z} - e^{- i k z)} = 2 i A \sin{(kz)} \ (5)$$

case 2: 0 to L

After taking the Schrodinger equation and considering potential equal to zero inside we reach at this: $$Ψ=A'×e^{ikz}+B'×e^{- ikz}$$

case 2.png


Boundary conditions
Outside the well the potential is assumed infinite, so the wavefunction is equal to zero:
  • $$\Psi = 0, \ when \ z \le 0 \ or \ z \ge L$$
  • $$Ψ(0)=0 \ (6)$$
  • $$Ψ(L)=0 \ (7)$$
From 1. we have : $$B'=−A'$$ (8)
So, we get from the original Schrodinger Equation: $$\Psi(z) = A' \times ( e^{i k z} - e^{- i k z)} = A' \sin{kz} \ (9)$$

and

$$Ψ(L)=0 = A' \sin{kL} \ which \ gives \ k=\frac{n \times \pi}{L} \ (10), where \ n=0,1,2,... (\ like \ before)$$

But, now if $$n=2m, where \ m=0,1,2,...$$ we get $$\Psi_{even}(z) = A' \sin({\frac {2m \pi }{L}z}) \ (11)$$

Normalization will eventually give the same amplitude, BUT, on the first case the wavefunction is imaginary. This added 'i' is what buffles me.

Thank you in advance for your help.
 

Attachments

  • case 1.png
    case 1.png
    6.6 KB · Views: 179
Physics news on Phys.org
The basis eigenfunctions have an arbitrary complex factor of modulus ##1##. You can take this to be ##1## or ##i## or any other unit complex number.
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Likes Solmyros and DrClaude
Wave functions with differing coefficients, real or complex of any magnitude, represent the same wave function. Normalization is required if observational probabilities are desired. Normalization makes them equal.
 
For the quantum state ##|l,m\rangle= |2,0\rangle## the z-component of angular momentum is zero and ##|L^2|=6 \hbar^2##. According to uncertainty it is impossible to determine the values of ##L_x, L_y, L_z## simultaneously. However, we know that ##L_x## and ## L_y##, like ##L_z##, get the values ##(-2,-1,0,1,2) \hbar##. In other words, for the state ##|2,0\rangle## we have ##\vec{L}=(L_x, L_y,0)## with ##L_x## and ## L_y## one of the values ##(-2,-1,0,1,2) \hbar##. But none of these...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
2K