Formation of a Potential Well: Mass & Wave Interaction

AI Thread Summary
A potential well is defined as a region that reduces the potential energy of a particle based on its spatial position, and it can also vary with time. The Coulomb force, which affects electrons near atomic nuclei, exemplifies a potential well, although it is not a simple square well. Time-varying potential wells can be created by low-frequency electromagnetic waves, while gravitational wells are formed due to the mass of celestial bodies. The discussion highlights that in quantum mechanics, potential wells arise from the fundamental forces, excluding gravity. Understanding these concepts is crucial for grasping the behavior of particles in various fields of physics.
Sumarna
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
How a potential well is formed? Can mass of a wave creates a potential well?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
A potential well is anything that drops the potential energy of a particle as a function of the particle's spatial position. Potential wells might also be time varying, i.e., a potential well might be a function of both position and time.

An example of something that can cause a potential well is the Coulomb force, i.e., the force applied to an electron by a relatively stationary atomic nucleus. It's not a square potential well -- a square potential well is an idealized well that convenient for educational purposes -- but the Coulomb force does create a type of well. The electron's potential energy is less when its position is close to the nucleus. There is a potential "well" near the nucleus.

An example of a time-varying potential well could include a low-frequency electromagnetic wave applied to an otherwise stationary system. (I say low-frequency here because if the EM wave's frequency is high enough one might require quantum field theory [e.g., quantum electrodynamics] to model the resulting system.)
 
collinsmark said:
A potential well is anything that drops the potential energy of a particle as a function of the particle's spatial position. Potential wells might also be time varying, i.e., a potential well might be a function of both position and time.

An example of something that can cause a potential well is the Coulomb force, i.e., the force applied to an electron by a relatively stationary atomic nucleus. It's not a square potential well -- a square potential well is an idealized well that convenient for educational purposes -- but the Coulomb force does create a type of well. The electron's potential energy is less when its position is close to the nucleus. There is a potential "well" near the nucleus.

An example of a time-varying potential well could include a low-frequency electromagnetic wave applied to an otherwise stationary system. (I say low-frequency here because if the EM wave's frequency is high enough one might require quantum field theory [e.g., quantum electrodynamics] to model the resulting system.)
So mass of the field is not the source of a potential well?
 
Sumarna said:
So mass of the field is not the source of a potential well?
It is for a gravitational well! :woot: That is also a potential well that is used when discussing gravity.

If the discussion involves orbiting celestial bodies, for example, then yes, the potential wells are a result of bodies' masses*.

*(technically the bodies' energies, if you take it as far as general relatively [GR] --mass is just another form of energy in GR. [Edit: although gravitational potential energy doesn't necessarily count the same way as other energies in GR. But now we're moving away from the classical "well" idea, so I'll stop here. The well idea works fine though if you treat gravitational potential energy in the Newtonian context, forming a gravitational potential well.])

In my previous post I was talking about quantum theory, which ignores gravity. Quantum mechanics (QM) does deal with potential wells caused by any of the other three fundamental forces however.
 
  • Like
Likes Sumarna
collinsmark said:
It is for a gravitational well! :woot: That is also a potential well that is used when discussing gravity.

If the discussion involves orbiting celestial bodies, for example, then yes, the potential wells are a result of bodies' masses*.

*(technically the bodies' energies, if you take it as far as general relatively [GR] --mass is just another form of energy in GR. [Edit: although gravitational potential energy doesn't necessarily count the same way as other energies in GR. But now we're moving away from the classical "well" idea, so I'll stop here. The well idea works fine though if you treat gravitational potential energy in the Newtonian context, forming a gravitational potential well.])

In my previous post I was talking about quantum theory, which ignores gravity. Quantum mechanics (QM) does deal with potential wells caused by any of the other three fundamental forces however.
thank u a lot. i think i have understood it now :)
 
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
This has been discussed many times on PF, and will likely come up again, so the video might come handy. Previous threads: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-a-treadmill-incline-just-a-marketing-gimmick.937725/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/work-done-running-on-an-inclined-treadmill.927825/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/how-do-we-calculate-the-energy-we-used-to-do-something.1052162/
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
Back
Top