Rectangular finite potential well problem

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on calculating the depth of a finite rectangular potential well given an electron with a kinetic energy of 0.7 eV. The user determined that the kinetic energy exceeds the potential well, leading to a transmission coefficient of T=1. By applying the formula for the potential barrier and solving for V_0, the user concluded that the potential well depth is approximately -1.65 eV. This result indicates a discrepancy with existing literature, particularly Wikipedia's formula for the transmission coefficient.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of quantum mechanics, specifically wave functions and potential wells.
  • Familiarity with the Schrödinger equation and its applications in potential problems.
  • Knowledge of the concepts of kinetic energy and potential energy in quantum systems.
  • Proficiency in using mathematical tools for solving complex equations, including normalization techniques.
NEXT STEPS
  • Review the derivation of the transmission coefficient for potential barriers in quantum mechanics.
  • Study the normalization of wave functions in quantum systems.
  • Learn about the implications of complex wave numbers in quantum mechanics.
  • Explore discrepancies in quantum mechanics literature, focusing on potential well problems.
USEFUL FOR

Students and researchers in quantum mechanics, particularly those studying potential wells and transmission coefficients, as well as educators seeking to clarify common misconceptions in quantum theory.

fluidistic
Gold Member
Messages
3,934
Reaction score
286

Homework Statement


An electron enters in a finite rectangular potential well of length 4 angstroms. When the entering electrons have a kinetic energy of 0.7 eV they can travel through the region without having any reflection. Use this information to calculate the depth of the potential well.


Homework Equations


Not sure because I don't know if the kinetic energy of the electron is greater or lesser than the potential well.
I know that inside the well, [itex]\Psi _{II}(x)= C \sin (kx)+ D \cos (kx)[/itex]. I also know the form of the wave function outside the well (thanks to https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=540406&page=3) but I don't have the normalization, etc. I tried to search in google, wikipedia and hyperphysics and can't find the whole detailed solution.
I was thinking of calculating the flux of probability (I need the exact wavefunctions, normalized) in order to calculate the coefficient of transmission.

The Attempt at a Solution


I'm confused. I don't know how to tackle the problem, too many unknowns to me.
Any tip is appreciated.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Ah I think I just realized how to solve the problem.
The electron has a greater kinetic energy that the potential well.
The coefficient of transmission is the one given by a barrier of potential when the energy of the particle exceed the potential barrier.
It is worth [itex]T=\frac{1}{1+ \frac{V_0 ^2 \sin ^2 (k_1 a)}{4E(E-V_0)}}[/itex] where [itex]k_1 = \sqrt { \frac{2m(V_0-E)}{\hbar ^2}}[/itex]. But unfortunately [itex]k_1[/itex] is complex.
So I set T=1 and I try to solve for [itex]V_0[/itex]... but this doesn't go well. This gives me [itex]V_0=0[/itex].
By the way I used the formula given in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rectangular_potential_barrier#Analysis_of_the_obtained_expressions.
Does someone understand better than me what's going on?
 
Hmm, I've watched the first part of and he reaches a slightly different result than wikipedia for the transmission coefficient.
His [itex]k_1[/itex] is worth [itex]\sqrt {\frac{2m (E-V_0)}{\hbar ^2} }[/itex].
So for my exercise, I must solve for [itex]V_0[/itex] and [itex]n=1[/itex] in the expression a [itex]\sqrt {\frac{2m (E-V_0)}{\hbar ^2}}=n \pi[/itex]. I've checked out the units, all seems to work.
When I plug and chug the given values for the problem, I reach that [itex]V_0\approx -1.65 eV[/itex] or [itex]-1.6 eV[/itex] if I round correctly.
Can someone check out my work? That would after all make wikipedia "slightly wrong" for a formula.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
16
Views
4K
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
5K