Potential barrier problem

zak8000
Messages
69
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


a particle of kinetic energy E is incident from left on a potential barrier,height U, situated at the origin.the barrier is infinitely wide and E>U

obtain an expression for the reflection coefficient R of the particle as a fuction ratio e=E/U


Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution



to left of barrier wavefunctions are free particle waves
barrier at x=0
psi(x,t)=Aexp(ikx-wt)+ Bexp(-ikx-wt) x<0

within barrier wavefunction also is oscillatory

E=h(cross)*w

considering case for E<U and using TISE on psi(x,t) within barrier we get

a=([2m(U-E)]^0.5)/h(cross)

but now E>U and as a result a becomes imaginary. introducing new wavenumber L and barrier wavefunction becomes

psi(x,t) =Cexp(-iLx-wt)+Dexp(iLx-wt) x>0 (note this is equation is only for a barrier of finite width)

but now everywhere to right from origin x=0 is the barrier wavefunction given above . to keep psi(x,t) from diverging for large x we must take D=0 leaving only decaying wave and this is where i am up to i was just wanting to know if i am on the right track
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You need two sets of wavefunctions, one for x<0 and another one for x>0. The first set for x<0 has two pieces, one representing the incident wave and one representing the reflected wave. For x>0 you have only one wave, the transmitted wave traveling to the right. Since E > U, all waves are represented by complex exponentials. These are basically sinusoidals and do not decay with x.
 
ok i see thanks so now my wavefunctions are

psi(x,t)=Aexp(ikx-wt)+Bexp(-ikx-wt) x<0
psi(x,t)=Dexp(iLx-wt) x>0

so now wavefunctions must be joined smoothly following the conditions
A+B=D cont of psi
ikA-ikB=iLD cont of d(psi)/dx

solving for D i get

A(1-k/L)=B(-1-k/L)

B/A= -(1-k/L)/(1+k/L)

reflection coefficient is given by R=|B^2|/|A^2| but i need to obtain an expression in terms of ratio E/U

so i tried to substitute k=(2mE/h(cross))^0.5 and L=i(2m(U-E)/h(cross))^0.5 into equation but was unsuccessful to get the ratio out am i on the right track?
 
Aren't k and L both real and isn't the ratio L/k related to U/E somehow?
 
yes sorry both L and k are real and i get E/U =-1/2 when i put them equal to each other but now I am kind of lost
 
I don't see how you get E/U = -1/2. What are your (correct) expressions for k and L?
 
Thread 'Need help understanding this figure on energy levels'
This figure is from "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" by Griffiths (3rd edition). It is available to download. It is from page 142. I am hoping the usual people on this site will give me a hand understanding what is going on in the figure. After the equation (4.50) it says "It is customary to introduce the principal quantum number, ##n##, which simply orders the allowed energies, starting with 1 for the ground state. (see the figure)" I still don't understand the figure :( Here is...
Thread 'Understanding how to "tack on" the time wiggle factor'
The last problem I posted on QM made it into advanced homework help, that is why I am putting it here. I am sorry for any hassle imposed on the moderators by myself. Part (a) is quite easy. We get $$\sigma_1 = 2\lambda, \mathbf{v}_1 = \begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ 0 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_2 = \lambda, \mathbf{v}_2 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_3 = -\lambda, \mathbf{v}_3 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ -1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} $$ There are two ways...

Similar threads

Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
19
Views
2K
Replies
10
Views
2K
Back
Top