Error in book? (derivation of quantum well)

In summary, the conversation is about a confusion regarding the symbols in a mathematical equation. The person is asking for an explanation as to why there is a change in the sign and the appearance of an "i" in the numerator. It is later discovered that there were errors in the original version of the book and the corrected version is provided. The conversation ends with gratitude for the help.
  • #1
divB
87
0
Hi,

http://books.google.at/books?id=40rRzNbuhpAC&pg=PA146

Can anybody explain me why in the third bracket in 3.139 is suddenly a minus instead of a plus? In 3.136 it is a Plus! And it is pure substitution as far as I understand...

And I checked everything before a few times: It should be correct!

And the next crazy stuff: From where does suddenly the "i" in the numerator (3.140) appear?

Thank you :-)
divB
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Hi divB!

You're absolutely right. There is a plus sign in the 3rd bracket and some confusion with factors of i in (3.140).

I found a later version of his book, where the errors are corrected. I attached a bmp of the relevant page.

Enjoy the book!

Best regards Martin
 

Attachments

  • CorrectAppl.png
    CorrectAppl.png
    27.2 KB · Views: 479
  • #3
GREAT! Thank you very much!

I can't believe it! It took me at least 5 hours ;-)

Thank you!
 

1. What is the error in the book's derivation of quantum well?

The error in the book's derivation of quantum well lies in the assumption that the potential energy of the well is constant, when in reality it should vary with the position of the particle.

2. How does this error affect the overall understanding of quantum well?

This error can lead to incorrect calculations and predictions about the behavior of particles in a quantum well. It can also result in a misunderstanding of the underlying principles of quantum mechanics.

3. Are there any other significant errors in the book's explanation of quantum well?

While this is the most notable error, there may be other smaller errors or oversimplifications in the book's explanation of quantum well. It is always important to critically evaluate any scientific information and seek out multiple sources for a well-rounded understanding.

4. Can this error be corrected or accounted for in any way?

Yes, the error can be corrected by taking into account the variation in potential energy in the derivation. This can lead to a more accurate understanding of the behavior of particles in a quantum well.

5. How can readers avoid being misled by this error in the book?

Readers can avoid being misled by this error by being aware of its presence and seeking out additional resources for a more thorough understanding of quantum well. It is also important to critically evaluate the information presented and question any assumptions made in the derivation.

Similar threads

What to study after Quantum Mechanics?
    • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
5
Views
2K
Trying to understand spin networks, or at least SU(2)
    • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
14
Views
5K
Exploring 9-11: Seeking Answers & Facts
    • General Discussion
Replies
2
Views
2K
Mathematica This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics (Week 236)
    • MATLAB, Maple, Mathematica, LaTeX
Replies
7
Views
2K
Mathematica This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics (Week 236)
    • MATLAB, Maple, Mathematica, LaTeX
Replies
9
Views
2K
Mathematica This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics (Week 257)
    • MATLAB, Maple, Mathematica, LaTeX
Replies
5
Views
3K
Mathematica This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics (Week 228)
    • MATLAB, Maple, Mathematica, LaTeX
Replies
2
Views
2K
Mathematica This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics (Week 228)
    • MATLAB, Maple, Mathematica, LaTeX
Replies
2
Views
3K
Mathematica This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics (Week 253)
    • MATLAB, Maple, Mathematica, LaTeX
Replies
20
Views
4K
Mathematica This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics (Week 267)
    • MATLAB, Maple, Mathematica, LaTeX
Replies
1
Views
2K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top