Can Free Particle Scattering Be Simplified Using Sine and Cosine Functions?

  • Thread starter Thread starter splitringtail
  • Start date Start date
splitringtail
Messages
49
Reaction score
0
[SOLVED] Making the math easier

Homework Statement



I am doing a free particle scattering/tunneling by a well and a barrier combination. There are four regions of interest where the wave numbers are different. I have seen the solution inside the well be expressed as a linear combination of exponents or sine and cosine functions.

Now I have only seen free particles in these problems as a linear combination of exponents... can I rewrite them as a linear combination of sine and cosine. I am finding these exponent forms very very cumbersome b/c I get two terms when I match the wave functions @ x=0, if they were in a sine and cosine combination, then it would sine would be zero @ x=0




Homework Equations


The Attempt at a Solution



This is more of a discussion and there is too much work to present here.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You can use the identity
e^{i\theta} = \cos\theta + i \sin\theta[/itex].<br /> So, for example<br /> \sum_k a_k e^{ikx} = \sum_k a_k (\cos(kx) + i \sin(kx))<br /> and then you can try to rewrite this (for example, if the sum runs from -infinity to +infinity, you can use that sin(-kx) = -sin(kx) and cos(-kx) = cos(kx) to simplify).<br /> If the exponent is real, you can use<br /> e^{\theta} = e^{i(-i\theta)} = \cos(-i\theta) + i sin(-i\theta)<br /> and subsequently <br /> \sinh x = -i \sin(i\theta), \cosh x = \cos(i\theta)<br /> to write them in hyperbolic sines and cosines. <br /> <br /> Conversely, if you have a combination of sines and cosines, you can always write them in exponentials. All of this is the reason we usually write a plane wave as something like exp(i(kx - wt)) with k the wavevector and w the frequency: you can write it out in sines and cosines to say that it really &quot;waves&quot; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":smile:" title="Smile :smile:" data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":smile:" />
 
Thread 'Need help understanding this figure on energy levels'
This figure is from "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" by Griffiths (3rd edition). It is available to download. It is from page 142. I am hoping the usual people on this site will give me a hand understanding what is going on in the figure. After the equation (4.50) it says "It is customary to introduce the principal quantum number, ##n##, which simply orders the allowed energies, starting with 1 for the ground state. (see the figure)" I still don't understand the figure :( Here is...
Thread 'Understanding how to "tack on" the time wiggle factor'
The last problem I posted on QM made it into advanced homework help, that is why I am putting it here. I am sorry for any hassle imposed on the moderators by myself. Part (a) is quite easy. We get $$\sigma_1 = 2\lambda, \mathbf{v}_1 = \begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ 0 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_2 = \lambda, \mathbf{v}_2 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_3 = -\lambda, \mathbf{v}_3 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ -1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} $$ There are two ways...
Back
Top