How Can You Have Negative Energy in a Positive Potential?

CPL.Luke
Messages
440
Reaction score
0
so I am studying the delta potential now and I notice that griffiths defines scattering and bound states as cases where E>0 and E<0 respectively. but I have to ask if you have a positive potential, then how an you have negative energy?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Isn't this another of the many cases in which it is completely arbitrary where you define the energy to be zero, since only the difference between successive energy levels has any physical meaning?
 
CPL.Luke said:
so I am studying the delta potential now and I notice that griffiths defines scattering and bound states as cases where E>0 and E<0 respectively. but I have to ask if you have a positive potential, then how an you have negative energy?

Positive potential corresponds to repulsion, so it cannot have bound (negative energy) states. All attractive potentials (e.g., in the hydrogen atom) are negative.

Eugene.
 
this is where I'm wondering wether or not he was just demonstrating the concept of a bound state by using a negative energy value (the potential where he did this most blatantly was the positive dirac delta potential) however its a common theme in the succesive sections for him to say that a scattering state is a state with positive energy, and a bound state is one with negative energy.

as I didn't like this definition I've been using one where a bound state is any state where the energy of the particle would be classically unable to exceed the potential barrier.

for instance in the positive step potential if the the wavicle has energy less than v then it will exponentially decay after the step, whic would be the "bound state" whereas the scattering state would be the one with energy greater than v.
 
There is a convention that a (inconsequential) constant term is aded to any potential, so as to make sure that the value of the potential at infinity is zero. Only with this condition it is correct to say that bound states have negative energy and scattering states have positive energy.

Eugene.
 
meopemuk said:
There is a convention that a (inconsequential) constant term is aded to any potential, so as to make sure that the value of the potential at infinity is zero. Only with this condition it is correct to say that bound states have negative energy and scattering states have positive energy.

Quite so. More generally, and without caring about where the zero of your energy axis is, it is E-V_{\rm max} that must be positive (free state) or negative (bound state), where V_{\rm max} is the maximum value of the potential.
 
Not an expert in QM. AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is quite different from the classical wave equation. The former is an equation for the dynamics of the state of a (quantum?) system, the latter is an equation for the dynamics of a (classical) degree of freedom. As a matter of fact, Schrödinger's equation is first order in time derivatives, while the classical wave equation is second order. But, AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is a wave equation; only its interpretation makes it non-classical...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
Is it possible, and fruitful, to use certain conceptual and technical tools from effective field theory (coarse-graining/integrating-out, power-counting, matching, RG) to think about the relationship between the fundamental (quantum) and the emergent (classical), both to account for the quasi-autonomy of the classical level and to quantify residual quantum corrections? By “emergent,” I mean the following: after integrating out fast/irrelevant quantum degrees of freedom (high-energy modes...
Back
Top