Finite Potential Well Solutions

71GA
Messages
208
Reaction score
0
Lets say we have a finite square well symetric around ##y## axis (picture below).

screenshot-from-2013-03-.png


I know how and why general solutions to the second order ODE (stationary Schrödinger equation) are as follows for the regions I, II and III.

\begin{align}
\text{I:}& & \psi_{\text{I}}&= Ae^{\kappa x} \\
\text{III:}& & \psi_{\text{III}}&= Be^{-\kappa x} \\
\text{II:}& & \psi_{\text{II}}&= C \cos(k x) + D\sin(kx)
\end{align}

But now i got to a point where i have to start applying a boundary conditions to get a speciffic solution. So i start with the 1st boundary condition which is ##\psi_{\text{I}}\left(-\frac{d}{2}\right)=\psi_{\text{II}}\left(-\frac{d}{2}\right)## for the left potential shift and ##\psi_{\text{II}}\left(\frac{d}{2}\right)=\psi_{\text{III}}\left(\frac{d}{2}\right)## for the right potential shift. These leave me with a system of 2 equations (one for left and one for right potential shift):

\begin{align}
{\scriptsize\text{left potential shift:}}& & Ae^{-\kappa \frac{d}{2}} &= C \cos\left(k\tfrac{d}{2}\right) - D\sin\left(k \tfrac{d}{2}\right)\\
{\scriptsize \text{right potential shift:}}& & Be^{-\kappa \frac{d}{2}} &= C \cos\left(k\tfrac{d}{2}\right) + D\sin\left(k \tfrac{d}{2}\right)\\
\end{align}

Question 1:
From here on authors of most books don't seem to explain much. Most of them only say that we must use ##\boxed{D\!=\!0}## to solve for even solutions and ##\boxed{C\!=\!0}## to solve for *odd solutions*. What is this argument based on?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
71GA said:
From here on authors of most books don't seem to explain much. Most of them only say that we must use ##\boxed{C\!=\!0}## to solve for even solutions and ##\boxed{D\!=\!0}## to solve for *odd solutions*. What is this argument based on?

How is cos(x) related to cos(-x) and how is sin(x) related to sin(-x)?

(apologies in advance if I've missed the point of your question)
 
Not an expert in QM. AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is quite different from the classical wave equation. The former is an equation for the dynamics of the state of a (quantum?) system, the latter is an equation for the dynamics of a (classical) degree of freedom. As a matter of fact, Schrödinger's equation is first order in time derivatives, while the classical wave equation is second order. But, AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is a wave equation; only its interpretation makes it non-classical...
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
Is it possible, and fruitful, to use certain conceptual and technical tools from effective field theory (coarse-graining/integrating-out, power-counting, matching, RG) to think about the relationship between the fundamental (quantum) and the emergent (classical), both to account for the quasi-autonomy of the classical level and to quantify residual quantum corrections? By “emergent,” I mean the following: after integrating out fast/irrelevant quantum degrees of freedom (high-energy modes...
Back
Top