Infinite square potential well

In summary, the conversation discusses a homework problem involving a square well potential and a quantum dot device. The question asks for the sketching of a ground-state probability density, and the conversation delves into the necessary equations and boundary conditions. There is some confusion about the second boundary condition and whether solving the Schrodinger equation is necessary for sketching the probability density. It is concluded that solving the equation may be necessary, even though it was not explicitly covered in class.
  • #1
whatisreality
290
1

Homework Statement


I think this is a square well potential problem. The question asks me to sketch the ground-state probability density, for the following situation:

A quasielectron moves in a 'quantum dot' device. The potential V(x) = 0 for 0 ≤ x < L, and is infinite otherwise.

Homework Equations

The Attempt at a Solution


I'm going to need to solve the Schrodinger equation within the device. I have no idea what a quantum dot is, but presumably it doesn't actually matter! I think you can just treat it like an infinite square potential. The Schrodinger equation is

##-\frac{\hbar^2}{2m} \frac{\partial \psi}{\partial x^2} = E \psi##
Within the device. And I also need boundary conditions. One of these boundary conditions is ##\psi(L)=0##, since the potential is infinite at L. Annoyingly, the potential is 0 at x=0, so I can't use the same reasoning there. So my first question is, how do I get my second boundary condition? I don't see how the potential being zero at x=0 in any way restricts what ##\psi## could be...
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
A. I wouldn't solve anything. It says "sketch".

B. If I were going to solve something, I'd make the problem more symmetric.
 
  • Like
Likes whatisreality
  • #3
Vanadium 50 said:
A. I wouldn't solve anything. It says "sketch".

B. If I were going to solve something, I'd make the problem more symmetric.
Don't I need to calculate the probability density in order to sketch it?
 
  • #4
whatisreality said:
And I also need boundary conditions. One of these boundary conditions is ##\psi(L)=0##, since the potential is infinite at L. Annoyingly, the potential is 0 at x=0, so I can't use the same reasoning there. So my first question is, how do I get my second boundary condition? I don't see how the potential being zero at x=0 in any way restricts what ##\psi## could be...

Specifying ##V(x) = 0 \ (0 \le x < 1)## is equivalent to ##V(x) = 0 \ (0 < x < 1)##.
 
  • Like
Likes whatisreality
  • #5
PeroK said:
Specifying ##V(x) = 0 \ (0 \le x < 1)## is equivalent to ##V(x) = 0 \ (0 < x < 1)##.
Why? In the first inequality V(x) is zero at x = 0, but in the second inequality the potential is infinite at x = 0. So I can't say that at x = 0, the wavefunction is zero, and I don't know where else to get a second boundary condition from.
 
  • #6
whatisreality said:
Why? In the first inequality V(x) is zero at x = 0, but in the second inequality the potential is infinite at x = 0. So I can't say that at x = 0, the wavefunction is zero, and I don't know where else to get a second boundary condition from.

Whether the boundary points are in or out doesn't affect the functions or the integrals. If the wavefunction is not ##0## at ##x=0## then it is discontinuous when viewed as a function for all ##x##.
 
  • Like
Likes whatisreality
  • #7
PeroK said:
Whether the boundary points are in or out doesn't affect the functions or the integrals. If the wavefunction is not ##0## at ##x=0## then it is discontinuous when viewed as a function for all ##x##.
So if I said the wavefunction is zero at x = 0, then I'm excluding the electron from being at x = 0, even though at x = 0 the potential is zero... that's ok? I thought it would have something to do with continuity! I was trying to find a way to use the derivative of ##\psi##.

Vanadium's post makes it sound like I don't actually need to solve for ##\psi## though to sketch the probability distribution. I know it's zero at the edges, but don't I need to integrate the magnitude between infinity and negative infinity to work out the probability density? How could I sketch it without an equation?
 
  • #8
whatisreality said:
So if I said the wavefunction is zero at x = 0, then I'm excluding the electron from being at x = 0, even though at x = 0 the potential is zero... that's ok? I thought it would have something to do with continuity! I was trying to find a way to use the derivative of ##\psi##.

Vanadium's post makes it sound like I don't actually need to solve for ##\psi## though to sketch the probability distribution. I know it's zero at the edges, but don't I need to integrate the magnitude between infinity and negative infinity to work out the probability density? How could I sketch it without an equation?

Yes. I suspect whover set the question didn't give it a second thought!
 
  • Like
Likes whatisreality
  • #9
PeroK said:
Yes. I suspect whover set the question didn't give it a second thought!
I know I'd only actually have to integrate between L and 0, and it should equal 1. And it's zero at both edges. Where does the whole 'ground state' thing come into it, anyway?

If this is actually a really easy question, I must be missing some fairly basic information.
 
  • #10
whatisreality said:
I know I'd only actually have to integrate between L and 0, and it should equal 1. And it's zero at both edges. Where does the whole 'ground state' thing come into it, anyway?

Are you supposed to know the ground state of the infinite square well? If not, then to sketch it, you'd have to solve the Schrodinger equation, I imagine.
 
  • Like
Likes whatisreality
  • #11
PeroK said:
Are you supposed to know the ground state of the infinite square well? If not, then to sketch it, you'd have to solve the Schrodinger equation, I imagine.
OK. We haven't done anything specifically about ground states of infinite square wells. I'd better solve the Schrodinger equation then!
 
  • #12
whatisreality said:
OK. We haven't done anything specifically about ground states of infinite square wells. I'd better solve the Schrodinger equation then!

It can't do any harm!
 
  • Like
Likes whatisreality

FAQ: Infinite square potential well

1. What is an infinite square potential well?

An infinite square potential well is a theoretical model used in quantum mechanics to describe the behavior of a particle confined within a certain region. It is characterized by an infinite potential barrier on all sides except for a finite region where the potential is zero.

2. What is the significance of the infinite square potential well?

The infinite square potential well serves as a simplified model for studying the behavior of particles in confined spaces, such as atoms and molecules. It helps in understanding the principles of quantum mechanics and how particles behave in different energy states.

3. How does a particle behave in an infinite square potential well?

A particle in an infinite square potential well can only exist in certain energy states, known as eigenstates. These states are described by a wave function, which determines the probability of finding the particle at a particular position within the well. The particle can also exhibit properties of both a wave and a particle, known as wave-particle duality.

4. What are the applications of the infinite square potential well?

The infinite square potential well has various applications in fields such as physics, chemistry, and engineering. It is used to understand the behavior of electrons in atoms and the properties of semiconductors. It is also used in the design of quantum dots, which have potential applications in quantum computing and nanotechnology.

5. Is the infinite square potential well a realistic model?

No, the infinite square potential well is a simplified model that does not accurately represent real-world systems. In reality, particles are not confined to a specific region and can interact with their surroundings. However, it serves as a useful tool for understanding the principles of quantum mechanics and can provide insights into the behavior of particles in more complex systems.

Back
Top