Can Classical Physics Explain the Infinite Potential Well in Quantum Mechanics?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the infinite potential well in quantum mechanics and its explanation through classical physics. It highlights the concept of an infinite potential as an impenetrable boundary, raising questions about the probability of finding a particle at certain points within the well. Specifically, it addresses why the probability is zero at the walls of the well and the implications of standing waves in this context. The conversation suggests that while the infinite potential well is mathematically simple, it serves as a useful model for understanding more complex systems, like laser cavities. Overall, the thread emphasizes the need for theoretical resources that simplify the mathematical aspects of this quantum concept.
v_pino
Messages
156
Reaction score
0
I've been told about the infinite potential well using quantum-mechanics, with mathematical proof. Is there any websites I can look at to understand this theory with less math, but instead, with a theoratical approach? Would classical-physics be able to describe this result?

thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The concept of an infinite potential is taken to simply mean an impenetrable boundary.
 
How come for some points in the 'well', the probability of finding a particle is zero?
 
For which points in the well is the probability of finding the particle zero? Are you referring to the points corresponding to the walls of the well?
 
A particle in an infinitely deep potential well is a very simple concept (well, mathematically simple...) and is a simplification of many actual things- laser cavities (or any resonant cavity), for example.

What I suspect you are asking about is that your example shows a standing wave- you have a square-bottomed well?
 
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'
Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...
Back
Top