Find the wave function of a particle bound in a semi-infinite square well

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around finding the wave function of a particle in a semi-infinite square well potential, characterized by a potential V(x) that is negative within a certain range and zero beyond it. Participants are tasked with solving the Schrödinger equation for this scenario and applying boundary conditions to derive the wave function for x ≥ 0.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning, Problem interpretation

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the formulation of the Schrödinger equation in different regions and the implications of boundary conditions. There are attempts to express the wave functions in terms of constants and to apply normalization conditions. Questions arise regarding the definitions of wave numbers and the behavior of wave functions at infinity.

Discussion Status

Several participants are engaged in deriving relationships between the constants in their wave functions and exploring normalization techniques. There is ongoing dialogue about the correct definitions of parameters and the implications of boundary conditions, with some guidance provided on integrating the square of the modulus for normalization.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the complexity of the algebra involved and the potential for confusion in defining wave numbers, particularly regarding their imaginary or real nature. The discussion reflects a collaborative effort to clarify these definitions and their impact on the solution process.

BPMead
Messages
8
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Consider the semi-infinite square well given by V(x) = -V0 < 0 for 0≤ xa and V(x) = 0 for x > a. There is an infinite barrier at x = 0 (hence the name "semi-infinite"). A particle with mass m is in a bound state in this potential with energy E ≤ 0. Solve the Schrödinger equation to derive ψ(x) for x ≥ 0. Use the appropriate boundary conditions and normalize the wave function so that the final answer does not contain any arbitrary constants.


Homework Equations


[-h_bar2/2m]ψ'' + V(x)ψ = Eψ


The Attempt at a Solution


  • Schrödinger Equation for 0 ≤ xa and x > a:
    [-h_bar2/2m]ψ'' - V0ψ = Eψ, 0 ≤ xa
    [-h_bar2/2m]ψ'' = Eψ, xa
  • Rewrite Schrödinger equations:
    ψ'' + 2m(E+V0)/h_bar2 = 0, 0 ≤ xa
    ψ'' + 2mE/h_bar2 = 0, xa
  • Solve Schrödinger equations:
    ψ1 = A1eik1x + B1e-ik1x, k1 = sqrt[2m(E+V0)]/h_bar, 0 ≤ xa
    ψ2 = A2eik2x + B2e-ik2x, k2 = sqrt[2mE]/h_bar, xa
  • k2 is negative, and the wave function must not blow up at x = ∞, so A2 = 0:
    ψ1 = A1eik1x + B1e-ik1x, k1 = sqrt[2m(E+V0)]/h_bar, 0 ≤ xa
    ψ2 = B2e-ik2x, k2 = sqrt[2mE]/h_bar, xa
  • Apply boundary conditions:
    ψ1(0) = 0
    ψ1(a) = ψ2(a)
    ψ'1(a) = ψ'2(a)

    1st condition: A1 + B1 = 0
    2nd condition: A1eik1a + B1e-ik1a = B2e-ik2a
    3rd condition: ik1A1eik1a - ik1B1e-ik1a = -ik2B2e-ik2a

Now I have 3 equations for 3 unknowns, A1, B1, and B2. But I have been trying to solve this algebraically for quite awhile, and I just can't get it to work. When I solve A1 and B1 in terms of B2 and try to plug them into the third condition, I just get B2 cancelling on both sides. Maybe I'm being really dumb about basic math but I would really appreciate if someone could help with this. Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
BPMead said:

Homework Statement


Consider the semi-infinite square well given by V(x) = -V0 < 0 for 0≤ xa and V(x) = 0 for x > a. There is an infinite barrier at x = 0 (hence the name "semi-infinite"). A particle with mass m is in a bound state in this potential with energy E ≤ 0. Solve the Schrödinger equation to derive ψ(x) for x ≥ 0. Use the appropriate boundary conditions and normalize the wave function so that the final answer does not contain any arbitrary constants.


Homework Equations


[-h_bar2/2m]ψ'' + V(x)ψ = Eψ


The Attempt at a Solution


  • Schrödinger Equation for 0 ≤ xa and x > a:
    [-h_bar2/2m]ψ'' - V0ψ = Eψ, 0 ≤ xa
    [-h_bar2/2m]ψ'' = Eψ, xa
  • Rewrite Schrödinger equations:
    ψ'' + 2m(E+V0)/h_bar2 = 0, 0 ≤ xa
    ψ'' + 2mE/h_bar2 = 0, xa
  • Solve Schrödinger equations:
    ψ1 = A1eik1x + B1e-ik1x, k1 = sqrt[2m(E+V0)]/h_bar, 0 ≤ xa
    ψ2 = A2eik2x + B2e-ik2x, k2 = sqrt[2mE]/h_bar, xa
  • k2 is negative, and the wave function must not blow up at x = ∞, so A2 = 0:
Actually, the way you defined k2, it's imaginary because E ≤ 0. It's usually better to define ##k_2 = \sqrt{-2mE}/\hbar##, so you can avoid those error-inducing factors of i.
ψ1 = A1eik1x + B1e-ik1x, k1 = sqrt[2m(E+V0)]/h_bar, 0 ≤ xa
ψ2 = B2e-ik2x, k2 = sqrt[2mE]/h_bar, xa
  • Apply boundary conditions:
    ψ1(0) = 0
    ψ1(a) = ψ2(a)
    ψ'1(a) = ψ'2(a)

    1st condition: A1 + B1 = 0
    2nd condition: A1eik1a + B1e-ik1a = B2e-ik2a
    3rd condition: ik1A1eik1a - ik1B1e-ik1a = -ik2B2e-ik2a

Now I have 3 equations for 3 unknowns, A1, B1, and B2. But I have been trying to solve this algebraically for quite awhile, and I just can't get it to work. When I solve A1 and B1 in terms of B2 and try to plug them into the third condition, I just get B2 cancelling on both sides. Maybe I'm being really dumb about basic math but I would really appreciate if someone could help with this. Thanks!
Once you get it down to everything in terms of one constant, you're finished with this part. To determine the constant, you require the wave function to be normalized.

What conditions did you get on k1 and k2? A non-trivial solution exists for only certain values.
 
Thank you so much for your response! I can see why you would define k2 that way, I guess I kept it imaginary so that ψ1 and ψ2 would have a similar format. The way I defined them should still theoretically work right? Or do I have to change it?

So I should solve in terms of one constant, but then how do I normalize when there are two wave functions? Do I integrate ψ1 from 0 to a and then add that to the integral of ψ2 from a to ∞, and set that equal to 1?
 
BPMead said:
Thank you so much for your response! I can see why you would define k2 that way, I guess I kept it imaginary so that ψ1 and ψ2 would have a similar format. The way I defined them should still theoretically work right? Or do I have to change it?
It'll work out either way.

So I should solve in terms of one constant, but then how do I normalize when there are two wave functions? Do I integrate ψ1 from 0 to a and then add that to the integral of ψ2 from a to ∞, and set that equal to 1?
Yes, that's what you would do.
 
Okay, when I solve that system of equations, I get:

A1 = B2e-ik2a / (eik1a - e-ik1a)
B1 = -B2e-ik2a / (eik1a - e-ik1a)

Plugging these into normalize:
Let j = e-ik2a / (eik1a - e-ik1a)

jB22∫eik1x - e-ik1xdx + B2∫e-ik2x = 1

Then I get
jB2/ik1 [eik1a-eik2(0)] - jB2/-ik1 [e-ik1(a) - e-ik1(0)] + B2/-ik2 (e-ik2(∞) - e-ik2(0)) = 1

What is e-ik2(∞)? Is that still 0? Even if it is, my answer looks unbelievably ugly.
 
You can simplify that a bit using
$$\sin x = \frac{e^{ix}-e^{-ix}}{2i}$$ In fact, if you step back a bit, your first boundary condition tells you A1=-B1 so that you can write ##\psi_1(x) = A \sin k_1x##.
What is e-ik2(∞)? Is that still 0?
I just noticed a mistake in your original post. The way you defined k2, it's purely imaginary and equal to
$$k_2 = i\left(\frac{\sqrt{-2mE}}{\hbar}\right)$$ where the quantity in the parentheses real and positive. Consequently, ik2 is purely real and negative. This implies that the A2 term vanishes as x→∞ but the B2 term blows up.
 
Okay, if we are going to include trig functions anyway, there is a simpler way that I saw to set this up:

ψ1 = A1sin(k1x) + B1cos(k1x)
Since ψ1(0) = 0, B1 = 0

So:

ψ1 = A1sin(k1x)
ψ2 = A2eik2x

Since ψ1(a) = ψ2(a):
A2 = A1sin(k1a) / eik2a

Now normalize to find constants:
∫A1sin(k1x)dx + ∫A2eik2xdx

Solving this, I get C = [1-cos(k1a)-sin(k1a)/eik2a]-1

Which doesn't really look simple enough to be right...
 
Remember you have to integrate the square of the modulus to normalize the wave function.
 
Ah! You're right. So what I got was:

A12∫sin2(k1x)dx + A12sin2(k1a)/e2ik2a∫eik2xdx = 1

That works out to:

1 = A12[a/2 - (1/4)sin(2k1a) - sin2(k1a)/(ik2eik2a)]

Is that the right way to get A1?
 
  • #10
Right idea. I really suggest you get rid of the unnecessary i's.
 

Similar threads

Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
Replies
5
Views
3K