Undergrad Calculate the number of states for a particle in a box

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the multiplicity of states for a particle in a box, which is proportional to the volume of the box and the surface area of momentum space. Participants express confusion about why higher energy allows for more possible directions for a particle, with clarifications that the states are steady-state solutions rather than involving actual travel. The conversation highlights the difference between classical and quantum mechanics, emphasizing that quantum states are quantized and do not follow classical intuition. The transition from quantum mechanics to classical mechanics is noted as complex and not always intuitive. Overall, the dialogue reflects a common struggle in understanding the implications of quantum mechanics on particle behavior.
Higgsono
Messages
93
Reaction score
4
The multiplicity of states for a particle in a box is proportional to the product of the volume of the box and the surface area of momentum space.

$$ \Omega = V_{volume}V_{momentum}$$

The surface area in momentum space is given by the equation:

$$p^{2}_{x}+ {p}^{2}_{y}+{p}^{2}_{z} = \frac{U}{2m}$$

But this seem rediculous to me. It says that, "the number of possible directions a particle can travel in is proportional to the total energy of the particle". I don't understand this, why would the particle have more directions to choose from when it have higher energy? I know what the mathematics says, but the physics of it I don't understand.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Higgsono said:
It says that, "the number of possible directions a particle can travel in is proportional to the total energy of the particle".
No it doesn't. The states are steady-state solutions and there is no traveling involved.
 
BvU said:
No it doesn't. The states are steady-state solutions and there is no traveling involved.

Doesn't answer my question.

What do you mean? Being in a moment state means it has a certain momentum.
 
Higgsono said:
Doesn't answer my question
I'm sorry about that.
Higgsono said:
Being in a moment state means it has a certain momentum
Yes, but you mix up a classical mindset with terms used in quantum mechanics. The expectation values for the momentum are all zero for the momentum states.
Higgsono said:
I know what the mathematics says, but the physics of it I don't understand.
Stick to the math.
 
Higgsono said:
why would the particle have more directions to choose from when it have higher energy?
I can almost imagine a particle being there in that box and making is choices ... :rolleyes:

In 1D the density of states is a constant. You can imagine dots on a half-line. A line segment length ##l## starting at 0 has ##l## dots (eigenstates). Increase ##l## with ## {\sf d}l## and you get ##{\sf d}l## more eigenstates.

In 2D same - imagine dots on a grid. In a circle with radius ##r## on that grid there are ##\pi r^2## possible eigenstates. An increase of ##r## with ##{\sf d}r## gets you ##2\pi r\;{\sf d}r## more of them.

In 3D you get a sphere and with radius ##r## on that 3D grid there are ##{4\over 3}\pi r^3## possible eigenstates. An increase of ##r## with ##{\sf d}r## gets you ##4\pi r^2\;{\sf d}r## more grid points.

But you know the math.
 
And you are definitely not the only one who wonders about this. cf @JohnnyGui here
(warning:154 posts :nb) ! )
( I hope JG doesn't mind my referring to the thread - I remember it well )

And wondering about things is a good habit for physicists !
 
Thanks for your answers! Maybe some of the confusion lies in my assumption that we are dealing with classical particles. In that case, intuition tells me that there should be a continnum of directions regardless of the energy of the particle.
 
Well, the name Quantum Mechanics itself already suggest quantization effects ...

The transition from QM to classical (usually by means of ##\hbar\downarrow 0##) requires a delicate approach, not always intuitive. And for the particle in a box I don't even know.
 
BvU said:
And you are definitely not the only one who wonders about this. cf @JohnnyGui here
(warning:154 posts :nb) ! )
( I hope JG doesn't mind my referring to the thread - I remember it well )

And wondering about things is a good habit for physicists !

I don't mind it at all :oldbiggrin:. I remember having difficulty understanding some aspects of the derivation of the continuous MB distribution, and I was too stubborn to truly nail it down in my head, hence the huge thread.
 
  • Like
Likes BvU

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 153 ·
6
Replies
153
Views
16K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
544
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K