Classical behavior, 3 dimension wave function and reflection

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on a physics problem involving a particle encountering a potential step, with the potential defined as U(x) = 0 for x ≤ 0 and U(x) = -3E for x > 0. Classically, the particle is expected to be transmitted completely without reflection since its energy E is greater than the potential step, resulting in unchanged kinetic energy. The participant is uncertain about the quantum mechanical wave function, initially proposing a three-dimensional form but questioning its simplicity. They also present a formula for the reflection ratio, R, based on wave numbers k1 and k2. Overall, the thread highlights the challenges faced by someone with a pharmacology background tackling modern physics concepts.
Docdan6
Messages
3
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


I'm a pharmacologist and I have a modern physics course to do. This is not my field and I'm completely lost... We were given this problem to do. Thanks a lot in advance.

Consider a potential where
U(x) = 0 for x ≤ 0
U(x) = -3E for x > 0

Consider a particle of energy E incident by the left. When the particle arrives at the potential step,

  1. What is the behavior of the particle from a classical point of view? How does vary its kinetic energy?
  2. From a quantum point of view, assuming that the incident wave function has the form Ψ(x) = 1eikx . Determine the complete wave function in the entire space.
  3. In the quantum case, what is the probability that the particle is reflected?

Homework Equations

The Attempt at a Solution


Here's what I have so far

1. I think that because E is greater than -3E, classically the particule would be transmitted completely without reflection because the difference between the energy E and the step potential would be positive, and would continue infinitely in x > 0... but I'm not sure. And its kinetic energy would not change.

2. I think that because the question ask the equation in three dimension, the forme should be:
Ψ(x, y, z) = 1 ( eikx + eiky + eikz )
but that can't be so simple...

3. from my research I came up with this:
The reflection ratio R would be
R = (k1 - k2)2 / (k1 + k2)2

k1 being √(2mE / ħ2)
k2 being √(2m(E - V0) / ħ2)

Please help me... it's been two days that I'm looking for this...Thanks !
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Where do you get the idea that this is in three dimensions ?
 
Last edited:
Docdan6 said:
I'm a pharmacologist and I have a modern physics course to do. This is not my field and I'm completely lost...

Docdan6 said:
1. I think that because E is greater than -3E, classically the particule would be transmitted completely without reflection because the difference between the energy E and the step potential would be positive, and would continue infinitely in x > 0... but I'm not sure. And its kinetic energy would not change.

I'm not sure how you ended up on a QM course without much knowledge of basic physics. We could probably help you on here to get to grips with some basic classical physics like question 1. But, to progress to QM, you'll need some very intensive and extensive help.

Perhaps someone else might try harder to help you, but I feel like there is only so much one can do, I'm sorry to say.
 
The book claims the answer is that all the magnitudes are the same because "the gravitational force on the penguin is the same". I'm having trouble understanding this. I thought the buoyant force was equal to the weight of the fluid displaced. Weight depends on mass which depends on density. Therefore, due to the differing densities the buoyant force will be different in each case? Is this incorrect?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K