Plotting a wavefunction for a finite potential well doesn't work out

In summary, the conversation discusses a finite square potential well with ODD solutions for ##\psi##. The boundary conditions for these solutions result in a transcendental equation, which can be solved graphically to determine possible energies for the system. Using constants for an electron in a finite well, the conversation then discusses using the determined energies to plot the functions ##\psi_I##, ##\psi_{II}##, and ##\psi_{III}##, and how slight discrepancies in the graphs can be solved by carefully reading and calculating the energies.
  • #1
71GA
208
0
Lets say we have a finite square potential well like below:

3PGLK.png


This well has a ##\psi## which we can combine with ##\psi_I##, ##\psi_{II}## and ##\psi_{III}##. I have been playing around and got expressions for them, but they are not the same for ODD and EVEN solutions but let's do this only for ODD ones.

ODD solutions:

$$
\boxed{\psi_{I}= Ae^{\mathcal{K} x}~~~~~~~~\psi_{II}= - \dfrac{A e^{-\mathcal{K}\tfrac{d}{2}}}{\sin\left( \mathcal{L} \tfrac{d}{2} \right)}\, \sin\left(\mathcal{L} x\right)~~~~~~~~
\psi_{III}=-Ae^{-\mathcal{K} x}}
$$

When i applied boundary conditions to these equations i got transcendental equation which is:

\begin{align}
&\boxed{-\dfrac{\mathcal{L}}{\mathcal{K}} = \tan \left(\mathcal{L \dfrac{d}{2}}\right)} && \mathcal L \equiv \sqrt{\tfrac{2mW}{\hbar^2}} && \mathcal K \equiv \sqrt{\tfrac{2m(W_p-W)}{\hbar^2}} \\
&{\scriptsize\text{transcendental eq.} }\\
&\boxed{-\sqrt{\tfrac{1}{W_p/W-1}} = \tan\left(\tfrac{\sqrt{2mW}}{\hbar} \tfrac{d}{2} \right)}\\
&{\scriptsize\text{transcendental eq. - used to graph} }
\end{align}

Transcendental equation can be solved graphically by separately plotting LHS and RHS and checking where crosssections are. ##x## coordinates of crossections represent possible (obviously quantized) energies ##W## in finite potential well. So i can theoreticaly get values for possible energies ##W## and when i get these i can calculate ##\mathcal L## and ##\mathcal K##. I won't get constant ##A## which i can set as i like as it is not relevant. I decided to plot graphs for a speciffic case of an electron with mass ##m_e## which i put in a finite well. So the constants i know are:

\begin{align}
d &= 0.5nm\\
m_e &= 9.109\cdot 10^{-31} kg\\
W_p &= 25eV\\
\hbar &= 1.055 \cdot 10^{-34} Js {\scriptsize~\dots\text{well known constant}}\\
1eV &= 1.602 \cdot 10^{-19} J {\scriptsize~\dots\text{need this to convert from eV to J}}
\end{align}

I first used constants above to again draw a graph of transcendental equation and i found 2 possible energies ##W## (those aren't quite accurateas they are obtained graphically). The graph is very simmilar to graphs from other QM books:

KzudS.png


Lets chose only one of the possible energies and try to plot ##\psi_I##, ##\psi_{II}## and ##\psi_{III}## for that same energy. I choose energy which is equal to ##0.17\, W_p## and calculate constants ##\mathcal K## and ##\mathcal L##:

\begin{align}
\mathcal K &= 2.3325888\cdot 10^{10}\\
\mathcal L &= 1.5573994\cdot 10^{10}\\
\end{align}

If i use those to plot ##\psi_I##, ##\psi_{II}## and ##\psi_{III}##, i notice that my boundary conditions at ##-\tfrac{d}{2}## and ##\tfrac{d}{2}## are not met:

KjZMf.png


QUESTION:
I did calculate my constants quite accurately, but i really can't read the energies (which are graphicall solutions to the first graph) very accurately. Does anyone have any suggestions on how to meet the boundary conditions? What's my problem here?

GNUPLOT script used to draw 2nd graph:
Code:
    set terminal epslatex color colortext size 9cm,5cm
    set size 1.5,1.0
    set output "potencialna_jama_6.tex"
    
    set style line 1 linetype 1 linewidth 3 linecolor rgb "#FF0055"
    set style line 2 linetype 2 linewidth 1 linecolor rgb "#FF0055"
    set style line 3 linetype 1 linewidth 3 linecolor rgb "#2C397D"
    set style line 4 linetype 2 linewidth 1 linecolor rgb "#2C397D"
    set style line 5 linetype 1 linewidth 3 linecolor rgb "#793715"
    set style line 6 linetype 2 linewidth 1 linecolor rgb "#793715"
    set style line 7 linetype 1 linewidth 3 linecolor rgb "#b1b1b1"
    set style line 8 linetype 3 linewidth 1 linecolor rgb "#b1b1b1"
    
    set grid
    
    set samples 7000
    
    set key at graph .70, 0.4
    set key samplen 2
    set key spacing 0.8
    
    m = 9.9109*10**(-31)
    d = 0.5*10**(-9)
    U = 25 * 1.602*10**(-19)
    h = 1.055*10**(-34)
    
    K = 2.3325888*10**10
    L = 1.5573994*10**10
    A = 1
    
    f(x) = A*exp(K*x)
    g(x) = -( A*exp(-L*(d/2)) )/( sin(L*(d/2)) )*sin(L*x)
    h(x) = -A*exp(-K*x)
    
    set xrange [-d:d]
    set yrange [-8*10**(-2):8*10**(-2)]
    
    set xtics ("$0$" 0, "$\\frac{d}{2}$" (d/2), "$-\\frac{d}{2}$" -(d/2))
    set ytics ("$0$" 0)

    set xlabel "$x$"
    
    plot [-1.5*d:1.5*d] f(x) ls 1 title "$\\psi_{I}$", g(x) ls 3 title "$\\psi_{II}$", h(x) ls 5 title "$\\psi_{III}$"
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
g(x) = -( A*exp(-L*(d/2)) )/( sin(L*(d/2)) )*sin(L*x)
The first L should be a K.

I think it's just a drawing problem. The functions have to meet at the edges of the potential well by construction.
 
  • #3
mfb said:
The first L should be a K.

I think it's just a drawing problem. The functions have to meet at the edges of the potential well by construction.
This was the case thank you! After this my graphs still came out a bit weird but then i figured out that my graphical readings for energies was sloppy. Once i redid all the readings and recalculated ##\mathcal L## and ##\mathcal K## my graphs came out perfectly!
 

Related to Plotting a wavefunction for a finite potential well doesn't work out

1. Why doesn't plotting a wavefunction for a finite potential well work out?

Plotting a wavefunction for a finite potential well does not work out because the wavefunction for a bound state in a finite potential well cannot be expressed in terms of simple, analytical functions. Instead, it must be approximated using numerical methods.

2. Can't the wavefunction for a finite potential well be expressed in terms of simple functions?

No, the wavefunction for a bound state in a finite potential well cannot be expressed in terms of simple, analytical functions. This is due to the varying potential within the well, making it impossible to find a single, simple solution for the entire well.

3. Are there any analytical solutions for the wavefunction of a finite potential well?

Yes, there are analytical solutions for the wavefunction of a finite potential well for specific cases, such as an infinite potential well or a step potential. However, for a general finite potential well with varying potential, numerical methods must be used to approximate the wavefunction.

4. Why is it important to accurately plot the wavefunction for a finite potential well?

Accurately plotting the wavefunction for a finite potential well is important because it provides valuable information about the behavior of particles within the well. It can help us understand the energy levels and probabilities of finding a particle in a particular location, which is crucial in many quantum mechanical systems.

5. Are there any limitations to plotting the wavefunction for a finite potential well using numerical methods?

Yes, there are limitations to plotting the wavefunction for a finite potential well using numerical methods. These methods can become computationally intensive for more complex potential wells, and may not always provide a completely accurate representation of the wavefunction. Additionally, these methods may not be able to capture certain quantum effects, such as tunneling, which can be important in some systems.

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
4K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
10
Views
1K
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • Classical Physics
Replies
0
Views
195
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
2
Views
2K
Back
Top