QM: Ground State Wave Function of Infinite Square Well

  • Thread starter Thread starter zheng89120
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Qm
zheng89120
Messages
139
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



I was wondering why is the ground state wave function of a particle in an infinite square well allowed? If you drawn it out on a graph, it is one-half of a full sine wave.

But the conditions for an acceptable wave equation is one that is continuous (yes) and "smooth"(no!). How is the ground state allowed, when it "breaks" at the wells?

Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution

 
Physics news on Phys.org
The wavefunction only has to be smooth when the potential is finite.

For a non-rigorous justification, take a look at the time-independent Schrodinger equation:
\frac{1}{2m}\nabla^2\psi = (E - V)\psi
If the potential V is infinite, then the second derivative of the wavefunction can also be infinite, which corresponds to a discontinuous first derivative, a.k.a. a non-smooth function.
 
I wouldn't worry about it too much. We know that in the real world that infinite isn't ever applicable, it's really only used for approximations and teaching. The finite square well is nicely smooth and continuous (though the transcendental equations make for a non-analytical solution that wouldn't be such a good introduction to quantum).
 
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...
Back
Top