Limits of Integration in the Transmission Coefficient

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the limits of integration in the context of the transmission coefficient in quantum mechanics, specifically referencing equations from a textbook by Nouredine Zettili. Participants are examining the implications of changing variable substitutions and the correctness of the limits in various integrals.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking, Problem interpretation

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants are questioning the appropriateness of the limits of integration in specific equations, particularly whether they should be switched or remain as stated in the text. There is a focus on the implications of these limits for the value of the transmission coefficient.

Discussion Status

Some participants have pointed out potential errors in the textbook regarding the limits of integration, suggesting that the limits may need to be switched in certain cases. Others are exploring the consistency of different equations referenced in the text and discussing the implications of these limits on the results.

Contextual Notes

There are references to specific equations in the textbook, and participants are considering the context of tunneling scenarios in quantum mechanics, including the direction of tunneling and the shape of potential barriers. The discussion also highlights a possible misprint in the limits of integration in one of the equations.

Samama Fahim
Messages
52
Reaction score
4
Homework Statement
Why are the limits of integration swapped in the following equation without introducing a minus sign?
Relevant Equations
##\int_0^1\sqrt{\frac{1}{x}-1}dx##
zetilli limits of integ.JPG


Initially '0' is the upper limit and ##a = \frac{Ze^2}{E}## is the lower limit. With change of variable ##x = \frac{Er}{Ze^2}##, for ##r=0##, ##x=0##, and for ##r=\frac{Ze^2}{E}##, ##x=1##, so 1 should be the lower limit. However, he takes 1 as the upper limit, and without a minus sign. Why is that?

(from Quantum Mechanics, Nouredine Zettili)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It appears to me that the error is in equation (9.446) of the text. ##\gamma## should be positive. But the way the limits are set up in the integral of (9.446), ##\gamma## will come out negative (since ##dr## in the integral will be negative). So, I think the limits should be switched in this integral with the lower limit being zero. The text refers back to (9.247). Does (9.247) agree with (9.446)?
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Delta2 and vela
TSny said:
It appears to me that the error is in equation (9.446) of the text. ##\gamma## should be positive. But the way the limits are set up in the integral of (9.446), ##\gamma## will come out negative (since ##dr## in the integral will be negative). So, I think the limits should be switched in this integral with the lower limit being zero. The text refers back to (9.247). Does (9.247) agree with (9.446)?
9.247 reads ##T \backsim e^{-2\gamma}##, ##\gamma = \frac{1}{\hbar}\int_{x_1}^{x_2}\sqrt{2m(V-E)} dx##
 
Samama Fahim said:
9.247 reads ##T \backsim e^{-2\gamma}##, ##\gamma = \frac{1}{\hbar}\int_{x_1}^{x_2}\sqrt{2m(V-E)} dx##
OK. This was probably discussed for the case where the particle tunnels from left to right through the barrier. That is, ##x_1## is the turning point on the left side and ##x_2## is the turning point on the right side. So, ##x_2 > x_1##.

The same formula (with no change in the integration limits for ##\gamma##) is valid in the WKB approximation if the particle tunnels from right to left through the barrier. The textbook appears to have made the mistake of assuming that the limits of integration should be switched in this case. You shouldn't switch the limits.

For example, suppose the potential barrier is symmetrically shaped, as shown.
1652727712064.png

Clearly, the transmission coefficient ##T## for right-to-left tunneling is the same as for left-to-right tunneling. In both cases, the turning point on the left (##x_1##) should be the lower limit of integration in the expression for ##\gamma##. Switching the limits would change ##T##.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Samama Fahim
I think there was a misprint in the limits of integration of equ. 9.448. You have
$$
\frac{Ze^2\sqrt{2m}}{\hbar \sqrt{E}}\int_1^{0}\sqrt{\frac{1}{x}-1}dx
$$
Make the substitution ##t=\frac{1}{x}-1## with ##dx=-\frac{dt}{(u+1)^2}## the integral becomes
$$
I=-\frac{Ze^2\sqrt{2m}}{\hbar \sqrt{E}}\int_{\infty}^0 \frac{t^{\frac{1}{2}}}{(t+1)^2}dt
$$
$$
=\frac{Ze^2\sqrt{2m}}{\hbar \sqrt{E}}\int_{0}^{\infty} \frac{t^{\frac{1}{2}}}{(t+1)^2}dt
$$
Using the formula for the Beta function
$$
B(x,y)=\int_{0}^{\infty} \frac{t^{x-1}}{(t+1)^{x+y}}dt
$$
and the Beta function in terms of Gamma functions,
$$
B(x,y)=\frac{\Gamma (x) \Gamma (y)}{\Gamma (x +y)}
$$
We find
$$
I=\frac{Ze^2\sqrt{2m}}{\hbar \sqrt{E}}B(\frac{3}{2},\frac{1}{2})=\frac{\pi Ze^2\sqrt{m}}{\hbar \sqrt{2E}}
$$
which is the obtained result in equ. 9.448.
 
Fred Wright said:
I think there was a misprint in the limits of integration of equ. 9.448. You have
$$
\frac{Ze^2\sqrt{2m}}{\hbar \sqrt{E}}\int_1^{0}\sqrt{\frac{1}{x}-1}dx
$$
Make the substitution ##t=\frac{1}{x}-1## with ##dx=-\frac{dt}{(u+1)^2}## the integral becomes
$$
I=-\frac{Ze^2\sqrt{2m}}{\hbar \sqrt{E}}\int_{\infty}^0 \frac{t^{\frac{1}{2}}}{(t+1)^2}dt
$$

Wouldn't the limits of integration be switched in the last line above? The substitution ##t=\frac{1}{x}-1## gives ##t = 0## when ##x= 1##, and ##t = \infty## when ##x = 0##.

So, with the substitution ##t=\frac{1}{x}-1##, $$ \int_1^0\sqrt{\frac{1}{x}-1}dx = -\int_0^\infty \frac{t^{\frac{1}{2}}}{(t+1)^2}dt$$
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K