Question about Schrodinger equation, potential and energy

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the confusion surrounding the 1D time-independent Schrödinger equation, specifically the mixing of potential energy (V) and total energy (E) in the equation. Participants clarify that V represents potential energy, not just potential, and emphasize the importance of understanding the relationship between electrostatic potential and energy. The conversation highlights the necessity of classical mechanics, particularly Hamiltonian and Lagrangian dynamics, as foundational knowledge for comprehending quantum mechanics, although some argue it is not strictly required for learning QM.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of the 1D time-independent Schrödinger equation
  • Knowledge of potential energy concepts in physics
  • Familiarity with Hamiltonian and Lagrangian mechanics
  • Basic principles of quantum mechanics
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation and applications of the Schrödinger equation
  • Learn about the relationship between potential energy and electrostatic potential
  • Explore Hamiltonian mechanics and its role in quantum mechanics
  • Review classical mechanics principles to strengthen understanding of quantum concepts
USEFUL FOR

Physics students, particularly those studying quantum mechanics, educators teaching QM concepts, and anyone seeking to clarify the relationship between potential energy and total energy in quantum systems.

  • #31
how to post picture?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
You can use the "manage attachement" tool...It should be less than 50KB and have one of the formats indicated there.

Daniel.
 
  • #33
Such as the formula of the Nylex post how does post come out?
 
  • #36
U were asking me about a picture.Usualy pictures are interpreted as attachements...:wink:

Daniel.
 
  • #37
Whoops, haha. The original poster's name was Nylex.
I thought thinker confused LateX with Nylon and produced Nylex.
Ironically, I was still helpful.
 
  • #38
:smile: That's a good one,Galileo...

Galilei...:-p

Daniel.
 
  • #39
thank you,dextercioby
 
  • #40
dextercioby said:
Well,Tom,that's from the DEFINITION.If they don't do it in CM,

I know, and that's my point. If you show QM students the Hamiltonian without explaining what it is, then I would think they would either not understand an important facet of the science, or be entirely lost. As Galileo said in this thread, one can be taught to solve problems in QM without learning Hamiltonian dynamics. Of course that's true, but why stop there? It also would be possible to teach a math student with no physics background how to mechanically solve problems in QM. But there's an important layer of understanding that would be lost, which is why I agree with you that CM should be compulsory prior to QM.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
5K