Find all values of E for a transcendental equation

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around solving a transcendental equation related to bound states in a potential well, specifically focusing on finding all values of energy (E) that satisfy the equation. Participants explore numerical methods and code implementations, as well as theoretical considerations regarding the potential well and energy states.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents a transcendental equation and expresses difficulty in obtaining real solutions using numerical methods like Nsolve and FindRoot, leading to precision errors.
  • Another participant corrects a notation error in the equation, suggesting that the correct term is Cot[l a] instead of Cot[l-a].
  • A participant mentions that plotting the two sides of the equation reveals that the curves do not intersect within the specified range of interest, indicating potential issues with finding solutions.
  • Another participant provides a calculation of mass and discusses expected energy levels in an infinite square well, suggesting that there should be multiple bound states in a finite well of depth 0.05 eV.
  • A later reply reiterates the original code and points out additional errors, including a typo in defining the reduced Planck constant (ħ), while also offering a method to simplify calculations by changing units for mass and energy.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the correctness of the equation and the feasibility of finding solutions, with some suggesting that the curves do not intersect and others focusing on potential errors in the code and calculations. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the existence of solutions for the given equation.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include potential errors in the code, dependence on the correct interpretation of the equation, and unresolved issues with numerical methods leading to precision errors.

happyparticle
Messages
490
Reaction score
24
Hi,
I'm trying to solve a transcendental equation. I would like all the values of E that solve this equation.
##k = -l \cdot Cot(la)##
However, using Nsolve or FindRoot, they give me a precision error. Hence, I'm trying this form.
##\sqrt{-e /(e+v)} = -Cot(la)##
FindRoot only give me an imaginary value and NSolve just keep running.
Here is my code
Code:
k = Sqrt[-2*m*e] /h
l = Sqrt[2*m*(e+v)] /h
m = (2.66*10^-26)(2.32*10^-26) / ((2.66*10^-26) + (2.32*10^-26))
h = 6.58-10^-16
v = 0.05
a = 3.2*10^-10

Nsolve[Sqrt[-e / (e+v)] == -(Cot[l-a]), e]

I'm trying to find all the energies corresponding to the bound states in a potential well.
https://quantummechanics.ucsd.edu/ph130a/130_notes/node151.html

Thank you
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
It is not Cot[l-a], but Cot[l a].

However, if you try and plot the two sides of the equality with the correct term in the cotangent, you will see that the two curves never cross in the range of interest, ##[-V_0,0]##.
 
I find the mass is about 7 GeV. In an infinite square well of width 0.32 nm, the ground state energy is around 0.00027 eV, so there should be plenty of bound states in the finite well of depth 0.05 eV.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: DrClaude
happyparticle said:
Here is my code
Code:
k = Sqrt[-2*m*e] /h
l = Sqrt[2*m*(e+v)] /h
m = (2.66*10^-26)(2.32*10^-26) / ((2.66*10^-26) + (2.32*10^-26))
h = 6.58-10^-16
v = 0.05
a = 3.2*10^-10

Nsolve[Sqrt[-e / (e+v)] == -(Cot[l-a]), e]
In addition to the other errors @DrClaude has pointed out, you have a typo in defining ##\hbar## as well.

Here's a little trick to simplifying the calculations and avoid a bunch of unit conversions.
$$k = \sqrt{-\frac{2mE}{\hbar^2}} = \sqrt{-\frac{2(mc^2)E}{(\hbar c)^2}}.$$ Express the mass ##m## in units of ##{\rm eV}/c^2## and the energy ##E## in eV, and use ##\hbar c = 197.3~\rm eV\cdot nm##. Then the calculated value of ##k## will have units of ##\rm nm^{-1}##.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: DrClaude

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K