Azimuthal and Particle in a box equations

  • Thread starter Thread starter maxiee
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Box Particle
maxiee
Messages
7
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Mathematically, the Azimuthal equation is the same differential equation as the one for a particle in a box. But \Phi(\phi) for m_l = 0, is a constant and is allowed, whereas such a constant wave function is not allowed for a particle in a box. What physics accounts for the difference?

Homework Equations


The Azimuthal Equation:
<br /> \frac{\partial ^{2} \Phi(\phi)}{\partial \phi^{2}} = -m_l ^{2} \Phi(\phi) <br />

The particle in a box equation:
<br /> \frac{\partial ^{2} \psi(x)}{\partial \psi^{2}} = -k ^{2} \psi(x) <br />

The Attempt at a Solution


The boundary conditions seem to play a role in the different allowed wave functions. However, I am having trouble relating the boundary conditions to the allowed quantum numbers.

Thanks in advance

Edit: The Azimuthal Equation corresponds to the Azimuthal motion of a particle. It comes about from the 3D Schrodinger Eq.
The Equation for a particle in a box is the result of the 1D Schrodinger Eq.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
There may come restrictions on m_l or k from the differential equations for the other coordinates. Now, I don't really remember the details but I think the radial equation imposes constraints on m_l. The notation implies that m_l=m_l(l). That is, m_l is a function of l, which appears in the equation for \theta I think, solved by the Legendre polynomials. I might be remembering this wrong however, mixing things up. But in general, I think this would be the difference - that you have different constraints in the two cases.
[STRIKE]
It would probably be good if you could explain a bit more in detail where the equations come from, I can only assume you are solving some PDE similar to the wave eq. or Schrödinger eq.[/STRIKE]

EDIT: Sorry, I can see that it is most probably the Schrödinger eq. you are solving.
 
Last edited:
To solve this, I first used the units to work out that a= m* a/m, i.e. t=z/λ. This would allow you to determine the time duration within an interval section by section and then add this to the previous ones to obtain the age of the respective layer. However, this would require a constant thickness per year for each interval. However, since this is most likely not the case, my next consideration was that the age must be the integral of a 1/λ(z) function, which I cannot model.
Back
Top