Flow of electrons hit a potential hole

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the flow of electrons encountering a potential well, specifically analyzing the behavior of electrons with a given kinetic energy as they interact with a potential depth. The original poster presents a problem involving the transmission of electrons through a potential hole, which is later clarified to be a potential well.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking, Problem interpretation

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the implications of the potential well versus a potential barrier, questioning the definitions and the resulting kinetic energy of electrons within these contexts. They discuss the mathematical representations of wavevectors and the behavior of wavefunctions in different potential scenarios.

Discussion Status

The discussion is active, with participants providing insights into the nature of potential wells and barriers. There is an ongoing exploration of the differences in kinetic energy calculations and wavefunction behavior, with no explicit consensus reached on the original problem's interpretation.

Contextual Notes

Participants note potential confusion regarding terminology, specifically the translation of "hole" to "well," and the implications this has on the understanding of the problem. The discussion also highlights the importance of distinguishing between potential wells and barriers in quantum mechanics.

skrat
Messages
740
Reaction score
8

Homework Statement


Flow of 500 electrons per second with kinetic energy 3 eV hits a perpendicular 5 eV potential hole 0.3 nm wide. How many electrons pass per second pass the obstacle?


Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution



Hmm, I checked my notes where it is written that coefficient of electrons that passes the obstacle is calculated as ##T=(1+\frac{1}{4}(\frac{k_1}{\kappa }+\frac{\kappa }{k_1})^2sinh^2(\kappa a))^{-1}##

Where I used notation ##k_1=\sqrt{\frac{2mE}{(h)^2}}## and ##\kappa =\sqrt{\frac{2m(V-E)}{(h)^2}}##. I don't know how to write crossed h in latex, so I used (h) instead. Notation a tells how wide the hole is.

So ##k_1=8.66 nm^{-1}## and ##\kappa =7.07 nm^{-1}## and ##sinh^2(\kappa a)=0.00137##

Which gives me ##T=0.05377## and therefore 26 electrons should pass the obstacle. BUT the result in the book states 408 electrons as result...


Doesn anybody know what am I doing wrong here?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Not sure what potential "hole" means. But if it means a potential "well" of depth 5 eV, then the kinetic energy will still be positive inside the well. So, you will have an oscillatory wavefunction inside the well rather than exponential behavior. Instead of a "kappa" ##\kappa##, you'll have a ##k_2## wavevector inside the well. What happens to the Sinh function in this case?
 
Potential well it is. In direct translation from my language it is a hole. :)

Now here is my question. How will the kinetic energy still be positive inside the well? Before the well it is 3 eV and the well has a depth of 5 eV.

so ##k_2 =\sqrt{\frac{2m(E-V)}{(h)^2}}=i\sqrt{\frac{2m(v-E)}{(h)^2}}=i\kappa ##

In case you are right, which you probably are but I would like to understand why... sinh is than sin function.
 
If you take the potential to be 0 outside the well, then inside the well it will be -5eV. The kinetic energy is the difference between E and V: E-V. This gives a positive value of the KE inside the well.

Right, the sinh function becomes a sin function.
 
So E-V=8 eV.

Than, only if V is positive than wavevector ##k_2## will be complex, or... ?
 
If V is positive and greater than E, then the wavevector will be imaginary. So, if you had a potential barrier of height 5 eV with E = 3 ev, then the kinetic energy E-V would be negative inside the barrier.
 
TSny said:
If V is positive and greater than E, then the wavevector will be imaginary. So, if you had a potential barrier of height 5 eV with E = 3 ev, then the kinetic energy E-V would be negative inside the barrier.

How does this differ from my original post (problem)?
 
skrat said:
How does this differ from my original post (problem)?

The original post dealt with a potential well (I think), whereas, my last comment was for a potential barrier.
 
For a moment a thought that's the same.

Thank you for your help!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K