Potential step at a Barrier in Quantum mechanics

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the behavior of wave functions at a potential barrier in quantum mechanics, specifically examining the case when the energy of a particle equals the height of the barrier (##E=V_0##). Participants explore the implications of this scenario on the wave function solutions and the existence of bound states.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions why the case of ##E=V_0## is often overlooked in literature, presenting the wave function forms for regions ##x<0## and ##x\geq 0##.
  • Another participant suggests that setting ##C=0## might be necessary but seeks clarification on the reasoning behind this choice.
  • Concerns are raised about the implications of ##C \ne 0## on the behavior of ##\psi_2(x)## as ##x \rightarrow +\infty##.
  • Discussion includes the idea that if a wave function does not approach zero at infinity, it raises questions about its validity.
  • A participant notes that in the context of scattering states, wave functions may not need to vanish at infinity, referencing free particle solutions and their normalization properties.
  • Another participant emphasizes that they are not dealing with bound states in this scenario, and discusses the general solution for ##E < V_0##, indicating that ##C=0## prevents divergence of the wave function.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the necessity of bound states and the implications of wave functions not approaching zero at infinity. There is no consensus on the treatment of the case ##E=V_0##, and multiple competing perspectives on the validity of wave functions exist.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the need for careful consideration of normalization and the nature of wave functions in scattering scenarios, indicating that assumptions about bound states may not apply in this context.

LagrangeEuler
Messages
711
Reaction score
22
In quantum mechanics in books authors discuss only cases ##E<V_0## and ##E>V_0##, where ##E## is energy of the particle and ##V_0## is height of the barrier. Why not ##E=V_0##?

In that case for ##x<0##
\psi_1(x)=Ae^{ikx}+Be^{-ikx}
and for ##x\geq 0##
\psi_2(x)=Cx+D
and then from ##\psi_1(0)=\psi_2(0)## and ##\psi_1'(0)=\psi_2'(0)## I got a system
1+\frac{B}{A}=\frac{D}{A}
ik-ik\frac{B}{A}=\frac{C}{A}
and I can not solve this. Maybe is necessary to take ##C=0##? But why?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
LagrangeEuler said:
Maybe is necessary to take ##C=0##? But why?
If ##C \ne 0##, what happens to ##\psi_2(x)## as ##x \rightarrow +\infty##?
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71
I like to suggest people try virtual simulations in addition to going through the math. When you try the simulation at that link make sure to check the boxes for 'show energy levels' and 'show transmission and reflection probabilities'.
 
Well in that case I will not have bound state. So wave function will go to either to ##+\infty## or ##-\infty##. But why I should have bound state?
 
LagrangeEuler said:
in that case I will not have bound state. So wave function will go to either to ##- \infty## or ##\infty##.

If a wave function does not go to zero at ##- \infty## or ##\infty##, is it valid?
 
LagrangeEuler said:
But why I should have bound state?
We're not dealing with bound states here.

Did you study the derivation for ##E < V_0##? In that case, for ##x > 0##, the general solution is something like $$\psi_2(x) = Ce^{\kappa x} + De^{-\kappa x}$$ Here we must set ##C=0## so that ##\psi_2(x)## doesn't "blow up" as ##x \rightarrow +\infty##.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: LagrangeEuler
PeterDonis said:
If a wave function does not go to zero at ##- \infty## or ##\infty##, is it valid?
For a scattering state it may be valid with some qualifications. The most simple case is the free particle, i.e., ##\hat{H}=\hat{p^2}/(2m)##. The energy-eigensolutions are the plane waves ##u_p(x)=N_p \exp(\mathrm{i} p x)## with eigenvalues ##E(p)=p^2/(2m)## (using natural units with ##\hbar=1##).

These are not Hilbert-space vectors though since ##|u_p|^2## is not integrable over ##x \in \mathbb{R}##, but they are generalized functions (distributions) living the in the dual of the domain of the position and momentum operators. They are "normalizable to a ##\delta## distribution", i.e.,
$$\int_{\mathbb{R}} \mathrm{d} x u_{p'}^*(x) u_{p}(x)=2 \pi |N_p|^2 \delta(p-p').$$
The usual choice for the normalization constants thus is ##N_p=1/\sqrt{2 \pi}##.

This should hold true for all scattering states in problems with a potential too. Now think again about what this implies for your constant ##C##!

For a thorough discussion of how to treat the normalization of scattering states (particularly also in this one-dimensional case) look in the textbook by Messiah, who does this very carefully.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: dextercioby

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
3K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K