I Equal or larger/smaller versus larger/smaller in boundary conditions

Tokki
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
TL;DR Summary
I am confused about why the two seem to be approached the same in all the solutions I have seen
Hi everyone!
This is the first time I'm posting on any forum and I'm still rather unsure of how to format so I'm sorry if it seems wonky. I'll try my best to keep the important stuff consistent!
I am working on infinite square well problems, and in the example problem:
V(x) = 0 if: 0 ≤ x ≤ a
∞ : otherwise

H`ere it is obvious that one should take ψ(a)=ψ(0)=0 and solve.

In the next example problem, however, the boundaries are shown as follows:
V(x) = 0 if: -a < x < a
∞ : otherwise

Here potential is zero if x is between (-a) and (a) but not when x is equal to (-a) or (a).
However, in the solution, the author does the same thing, making ψ(-a)=ψ(a)=0
The conditions, however, do not seem to allow this.
What am I missing?
Thank you!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Tokki said:
Summary:: I am confused about why the two seem to be approached the same in all the solutions I have seen

Hi everyone!
This is the first time I'm posting on any forum and I'm still rather unsure of how to format so I'm sorry if it seems wonky. I'll try my best to keep the important stuff consistent!
I am working on infinite square well problems, and in the example problem:
V(x) = 0 if: 0 ≤ x ≤ a
∞ : otherwise

H`ere it is obvious that one should take ψ(a)=ψ(0)=0 and solve.

In the next example problem, however, the boundaries are shown as follows:
V(x) = 0 if: -a < x < a
∞ : otherwise

Here potential is zero if x is between (-a) and (a) but not when x is equal to (-a) or (a).
However, in the solution, the author does the same thing, making ψ(-a)=ψ(a)=0
The conditions, however, do not seem to allow this.
What am I missing?
Thank you!

The two problems are physically the same, whether you have ##<## or ##\le##.

Why do you think in the second case you don't have ##\psi(-a) = \psi(a) = 0##? It can't be non-zero at these points.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71
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!
Back
Top