Free Particle & Square Well Potential Explained

kaadshah123456
Messages
3
Reaction score
1
free particle can be thought of as unbound particle:confused:
and what about square well potential with finite walls? coz it has both bound and unbound states

please help m confused thanks in advance
 
Physics news on Phys.org
By definition a free particle is a particle that acts as if its the only thing in an inertial frame.

An inertial frame is defined as a frame where all points are the same, all directions are the same, and all instances in time are the same. Without going into the details (you will find it in Landau - Mechanics) that constrains its Lagrangian to be mv^2/2 so the particle moves at a constant velocity. The Hamiltonian is then the same but its more usual to write it as p^2/2m.

You shove that into Schrodinger's equation and you get the wave solution:
http://www.physics.ox.ac.uk/Users/smithb/website/coursenotes/qi/QILectureNotes3.pdf

You place a particle in a square well potential and its no longer in an inertial frame (all points are no longer the same) - the Hamiltonian is different and you get different solutions to Schroedinger's equation.

Thanks
Bill
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71
bhobba said:
By definition a free particle is a particle that acts as if its the only thing in an inertial frame.

An inertial frame is defined as a frame where all points are the same, all directions are the same, and all instances in time are the same. Without going into the details (you will find it in Landau - Mechanics) that constrains its Lagrangian to be mv^2/2 so the particle moves at a constant velocity. The Hamiltonian is then the same but its more usual to write it as p^2/2m.

You shove that into Schrodinger's equation and you get the wave solution:
http://www.physics.ox.ac.uk/Users/smithb/website/coursenotes/qi/QILectureNotes3.pdf

You place a particle in a square well potential and its no longer in an inertial frame (all points are no longer the same) - the Hamiltonian is different and you get different solutions to Schroedinger's equation.

Thanks
Bill
but can you say that free particle is unbound?? acc to definatioms unbound sysyem are those in which particle can go to infinite
 
kaadshah123456 said:
but can you say that free particle is unbound?? acc to definatioms unbound sysyem are those in which particle can go to infinite

That's the same thing as being in an inertial frame. If it can't go to infinity then all points are not the same.

Thanks
Bill
 
:nb) now i und.
thanks lot:)
 
  • Like
Likes bhobba
From the Physics Forums Global Guidelines:
Pay reasonable attention to written English communication standards. This includes the use of proper grammatical structure, punctuation, capitalization, spacing, and spelling. In particular, "I" is capitalized, there's a space after (but not before) a comma, a period, and other punctuation. Multiple exclamation marks are also discouraged. SMS messaging shorthand ("text-message-speak"), such as using "u" for "you", "please" for "please", or "wanna" for "want to" is not acceptable.
 
We often see discussions about what QM and QFT mean, but hardly anything on just how fundamental they are to much of physics. To rectify that, see the following; https://www.cambridge.org/engage/api-gateway/coe/assets/orp/resource/item/66a6a6005101a2ffa86cdd48/original/a-derivation-of-maxwell-s-equations-from-first-principles.pdf 'Somewhat magically, if one then applies local gauge invariance to the Dirac Lagrangian, a field appears, and from this field it is possible to derive Maxwell’s...
I read Hanbury Brown and Twiss's experiment is using one beam but split into two to test their correlation. It said the traditional correlation test were using two beams........ This confused me, sorry. All the correlation tests I learnt such as Stern-Gerlash are using one beam? (Sorry if I am wrong) I was also told traditional interferometers are concerning about amplitude but Hanbury Brown and Twiss were concerning about intensity? Isn't the square of amplitude is the intensity? Please...
I am not sure if this belongs in the biology section, but it appears more of a quantum physics question. Mike Wiest, Associate Professor of Neuroscience at Wellesley College in the US. In 2024 he published the results of an experiment on anaesthesia which purported to point to a role of quantum processes in consciousness; here is a popular exposition: https://neurosciencenews.com/quantum-process-consciousness-27624/ As my expertise in neuroscience doesn't reach up to an ant's ear...
Back
Top