Understanding the Infinite Square Well Problem | Bound States & Eigenfunctions

  • Thread starter Thread starter quasar_4
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    General
quasar_4
Messages
273
Reaction score
0
I need someone to tell me if I'm understanding things. :shy:

Let's say that we're studying the infinite square well problem, where the well extends from -L/2 to L/2 in 1 dimension. In this case, the energy of the system, E, is less than the potential at the barriers, so the eigenstates of the Hamiltonian (obviously) correspond to bound states.

Here is where I am confused - please tell me what I am thinking correctly and incorrectly:

- the Hamiltonian and momentum operators commute, so in general, they share a set of eigenfunctions. But the particle in this well can't be in an eigenstate of momentum, because it's in a bound state (and eigenstates of momentum correspond to scattering problems)?

- We know that the expectation value of momentum, <p>, must be zero for a particle in the well because bound states are stationary states, and a nonzero <p> would indicate that the particle was escaping the well (is this a good sort of physical reasoning)?

- The probability of finding the particle is greater at the center of the well then at the edges , but I can't really explain this physically (it seems to be more a mathematical result in my mind than a physical one, and I'm not sure how to describe the probability of finding the particle at some point, without thinking of probability density functions).
 
Physics news on Phys.org
quasar_4 said:
I need someone to tell me if I'm understanding things. :shy:

Let's say that we're studying the infinite square well problem, where the well extends from -L/2 to L/2 in 1 dimension. In this case, the energy of the system, E, is less than the potential at the barriers, so the eigenstates of the Hamiltonian (obviously) correspond to bound states.

Here is where I am confused - please tell me what I am thinking correctly and incorrectly:

- the Hamiltonian and momentum operators commute,
no, they do not. There is an external potential (the infinite barriers at +-L/2) which obviously makes the system not translational invariant.

so in general, they share a set of eigenfunctions.

no. act on an eigenfuntion with d/dx... do you get the same function back again? no.
But the particle in this well can't be in an eigenstate of momentum, because it's in a bound state (and eigenstates of momentum correspond to scattering problems)?

- We know that the expectation value of momentum, <p>, must be zero for a particle in the well because bound states are stationary states, and a nonzero <p> would indicate that the particle was escaping the well (is this a good sort of physical reasoning)?

- The probability of finding the particle is greater at the center of the well then at the edges , but I can't really explain this physically (it seems to be more a mathematical result in my mind than a physical one, and I'm not sure how to describe the probability of finding the particle at some point, without thinking of probability density functions).
 
Ah - so actually, H and p only (necessarily) commute for the case of the free particle. In any other situation I would have to check.
 
quasar_4 said:
Ah - so actually, H and p only (necessarily) commute for the case of the free particle. In any other situation I would have to check.

Correct. And the particle in a box is not free (because there is a confining box/potential).
 
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...
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
Is it possible, and fruitful, to use certain conceptual and technical tools from effective field theory (coarse-graining/integrating-out, power-counting, matching, RG) to think about the relationship between the fundamental (quantum) and the emergent (classical), both to account for the quasi-autonomy of the classical level and to quantify residual quantum corrections? By “emergent,” I mean the following: after integrating out fast/irrelevant quantum degrees of freedom (high-energy modes...
Back
Top