1. Limited time only! Sign up for a free 30min personal tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Homework Help: Pretty simple problem I thought.

  1. Dec 14, 2006 #1
    1. The problem statement, all variables and given/known data

    The potential energy of a particle is defined by the piecewise function:

    V(x) = infinity if x<0
    V(x) = -V0 if 0<x<b
    V(x) = 0 if x>b

    So it's like a square well with one side being infinite. I need to find the condition on V0 and b so that no bound stationary states exist, then for there to be exactly three stationary states.

    2. Relevant equations

    Uh.. not sure. For a regular square well, I have that if V0 > 0 there is at least one stationary state. So for there to be none, V0 has to be less than zero? But this isn't quite the same as a square well.

    3. The attempt at a solution

    See above. I also know that each stationary state must have a node at x=0. I just don't know how to put all this together..
    Last edited: Dec 15, 2006
  2. jcsd
  3. Dec 15, 2006 #2
    OK... could really use some help on this one. I thought if I started with the individual wave equations, I could figure it out. So for what I'm calling Region I, 0<x<b, I came up with [tex]\Psi=C_I^+cos[\sqrt{2m(V_0-\epsilon)}(\frac{x}{\hbar}})]+C_I^-sin[\sqrt{2m(V_0-\epsilon)}(\frac{x}{\hbar})][/tex], and for region II, x>b, [tex]\Psi=C_{II}e^{-\sqrt{2m\epsilon}(\frac{x}{\hbar})[/tex], where epsilon is the binding energy. I'm doing this based on the assumption that it's like a regular square well, so I have no idea if that's right or not. Now before I can impose the condition that there is no node at x=0, it seems like I should figure out the constants. To do that I tried to impose that the wavefunctions and their derivative are continous at x=b.. but that still leaves you with 2 equations and 3 unknowns, so it can't be solved yet.

    A nudge in the right direction (or even an acknowledgment that I'm totally wrong) would be much appreciated.
  4. Dec 15, 2006 #3
    Hm.. could it be that I'm not explaining the problem clearly enough? Let me know if so. I tried to draw something to post here but it's sort of confusing. It's just a semi-infinite square well, as nearly as I can tell.. but I really think I'm doing this wrong.
  5. Dec 15, 2006 #4
    let me rephrase.. how can it be that there are no stationary states in a potential well? i think if i can understand that, the rest of it will be easy.
  6. Dec 15, 2006 #5


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Your wavefunction should vanish at x=0. There may be fewer constants than you think. Nudge.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook