Infinite well potential - changed bottom

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on calculating energy shifts for excited states in a modified infinite well with a potential defined by V(x) = ε sin(πx/b). Participants clarify that for ε = 0, the wave functions are given by Ψ_n = √(2/b) sin(nπx/b), but the introduction of ε complicates the situation. There is confusion about the implications of the potential shape and where the particle can exist within the well. The conversation emphasizes the need to derive the wave function and perform perturbation calculations to determine energy shifts to first order in ε. Overall, the thread highlights the complexities of quantum mechanics when modifying potential wells.
Kidiz
Messages
21
Reaction score
4

Homework Statement



The bottom of an infinite well is changed to have the shape

$$V(x) = \epsilon \sin {\dfrac{\pi x}{b}}, 0 \le x \le b$$

Calculate the energy shifts for all the excited states to first order in ##\epsilon##. Note that the well originally had ##V(x) = 0## for ##0 \le x \le b## and ##V = \infty ## elsewhere.

Homework Equations

/Attempt at a solution[/B]

I know I should use ##<\Psi _n | H_1 | \Psi_n>##, and that ##H_1 = \epsilon \sin {\dfrac{\pi x}{b}}##. If I had ##\Psi _n## all I to do was integrate between ##0## and ##b##. However, I don't have ##\Psi _n##. For the "normal" potential well, I know that ##\Psi _ n = \sqrt{2/b} \sin {\dfrac{n \pi x}{b}}##. However, that is not the case in this exercise.

Any suggestions?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You say: "However, that is not the case in this exercise." Why is it not? That is, what would the wave functions be if epsilon was zero?
 
DEvens said:
You say: "However, that is not the case in this exercise." Why is it not? That is, what would the wave functions be if epsilon was zero?

For epsilon = 0, we'd have no potential inside the box, so the solution would be ##\Psi _ n = \sqrt{2/b} \sin {\dfrac{n \pi x}{b}}##. I say that it's not the same because there's a space (below the potential line) in which the particle can not be. Is it the same though?
 
Kidiz said:
I say that it's not the same because there's a space (below the potential line) in which the particle can not be.

Um... What? It's a finite potential value inside an infinite square well. What do you mean "in which the particle can not be"? Where can't it be? And why not?
 
DEvens said:
Um... What? It's a finite potential value inside an infinite square well. What do you mean "in which the particle can not be"? Where can't it be? And why not?

I'm imagining something like this: http://sketchtoy.com/64403013

I said that the particle couldn't be in C, only in A. But now that I think about it, I don't see why it could not be in C.
 
Um... You do realize that your graph is plotting the value of the potential, right? It does not tell you where the particle is. It does not make sense what you said. The particle is neither in A nor C. It's not on that graph.

The particle has a wave function. You have to work out that wave function. Or at least, you are asked to work it out to first order in epsilon. You are being asked to do a perturbation calculation. You had most of it in your first post.
 
Thread 'Help with Time-Independent Perturbation Theory "Good" States Proof'
(Disclaimer: this is not a HW question. I am self-studying, and this felt like the type of question I've seen in this forum. If there is somewhere better for me to share this doubt, please let me know and I'll transfer it right away.) I am currently reviewing Chapter 7 of Introduction to QM by Griffiths. I have been stuck for an hour or so trying to understand the last paragraph of this proof (pls check the attached file). It claims that we can express Ψ_{γ}(0) as a linear combination of...
Back
Top