Boundary and Continuity Conditions in 2D Potential Problem

PeteSampras
Messages
43
Reaction score
2
Hello, i had studied the problem in 1D, but i thinking the problem in 2d, an i have the following question:

in a potential -V between (-a,a) an 0 otherwise.

One dimensional case:

One of the boundary condition are :

##\phi_I \in (-a,a)##, and ##\phi_{II} \in (a,\infty)##

## \phi_I(a)=\phi_{II}(a)##

and continuity condition

## \phi_I'(a)=\phi_{II}'(a)##

in two dimensional case , for example with separation variables:

##X_I(x)Y_I(y) \in (x,y) \in (-a,a)##, and ##X_{II}(x) Y_{II}(y) \in (x,y) \in (a,\infty)##

how are the boundary and continuity condition?

I think that

## X_I(x=a)Y_I(y=a)=X_{II}(x=a)Y_{II}(x=a)##

but, ¿how i write the continuity condition?,
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You mean x \in (-a,a) and y \in (-a,a)
You don't have to do much, just match the corresponding solutions. Y,X are independent of x,y respectively, so you can deal with the x,y axis separately as having the 1D case (only twice cause now you have 2 -x,y- 1D )
So
X_I (a)= X_{II} (a)

Y_I (a)= Y_{II} (a)

The same argument:
The only other way to have the continuity of \Psi at those points would be to say:
X_{I}(a)= Y_{II}(a)
Y_{I}(a)= X_{II}(a)
But this wouldn't make any sense, since that's the reason of applying the separation of solutions- to treat each variable independently of the other.
 
Last edited:
ϕI(a,a)=ϕII(a,a) ?
 
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
If we release an electron around a positively charged sphere, the initial state of electron is a linear combination of Hydrogen-like states. According to quantum mechanics, evolution of time would not change this initial state because the potential is time independent. However, classically we expect the electron to collide with the sphere. So, it seems that the quantum and classics predict different behaviours!
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...
Back
Top