Rectangular Potential and Constraints

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around a quantum mechanics problem involving a rectangular potential well defined by the piecewise function U(x). Participants explore the conditions for solving the time-dependent Schrödinger equation, particularly focusing on the implications of setting R_2 = 0 in the context of incoming and outgoing probability waves.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant outlines the piecewise solution for the wave function and notes the need for six conditions to solve the problem, questioning the motivation for setting R_2 = 0.
  • Another participant suggests that setting R_2 = 0 is valid if it is assumed that incoming particles are only coming from the negative x side, implying no probability for reflection from the positive side.
  • A different participant mentions that a full analysis would include definitions of incoming and outgoing probability waves, leading to the vanishing of two complex exponential terms.
  • One participant clarifies which terms vanish, indicating that the incoming wave from the left and the outgoing wave to the right must have opposite signs in their complex exponentials.
  • Another participant explains that R_2 = 0 is justified because it corresponds to the absence of an incident wave from the right, while L_1 and L_2 represent waves from the left.
  • There is a question raised about whether the transmission probability should consider differences in wave number k, which relates to momentum differences.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the implications of setting R_2 = 0 and the conditions under which this is valid. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the necessity of accounting for wave number differences in transmission probability.

Contextual Notes

The discussion involves assumptions about the direction of incoming particles and the definitions of probability waves, which may not be universally agreed upon. The mathematical steps leading to the conditions for the wave function are not fully resolved.

Kreizhn
Messages
714
Reaction score
1
Hey all,

A friend asked me for help the other day on his QM homework. The problem regards a rectangular potential
[tex]U(x) = \begin{cases} V_0 & -a \leq x \leq a \\ 0 & \text{otherwise} \end{cases}, \qquad E<V_0[/tex]
I thought about this for a while and checked a few textbooks. If we solve this in a piecewise form, we get
[tex]\psi(x) = \begin{cases} L_1 e^{ik_Lx} + L_2 e^{-ik_Lx} & x < -a \\ C_1 e^{kx} + C_2 e^{-kx} & -a < x < a \\ R_1 e^{ik_Rx} + R_2 e^{-ik_Rx} & x > a \end{cases}[/tex]
Now by demanding that [itex]\psi(x)[/itex] be continuous and have continuous derivatives, we get 2 conditions from [itex]x=-a[/itex] and 2 from [itex]x=a[/itex] for a total of 4 conditions. Normalization gives us a 5th condition, but we need 6 in total. Now according to the textbooks, we can just set [itex]R_2 = 0[/itex]. My question is, what is the motivation that allows us to set [itex]R_2 = 0[/itex]?

Edit: Sorry, I perhaps should have been more explicit. I hope it's clear I'm talking about solving the time dependent Schrödinger equation, and [itex]k_L, k_R[/itex] are appropriately defined constants. I didn't think they were important but meant to include them originally.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Edited out my first paragraph, I noticed it was incorrect.

I suppose if in the book they are assuming the incoming particles are only coming from the negative x side, then you could set [tex]R_2[/tex] to 0. It is the probability amplitude a particle will reflect off the potential coming from the positive side. If there is no particles heading in that direction, there is no probability.
 
Last edited:
Actually a full analysis discusses the solutions including the time dependency. That analysis will include the notions of incoming probability wave and outgoing probability wave. When these 2 are properly defined, 2 of the complex exponentials terms will vanish.
 
which 2?
 
Both for the incoming wave and for the outgoing one the complex exponentials in t and x must have opposite signs (I assumed incoming wave from the left (-infty -> x) going to the right (x->+\infty)).
 
The condition [itex]R_2=0[/itex] is motivated by saying that the [itex]L_1[/itex] term corresponds to a wave incident from the left, the [itex]L_2[/itex] term corresponds to a wave that was reflected from the potential, and the [itex]R_1[/itex] term corresponds to a wave that was transmitted through the potential. We would want the [itex]R_2[/itex] term only if we had an incident wave from the right as well as the left.

With [itex]R_2=0[/itex], the reflection probability is [itex]|L_2/L_1|^2[/itex], and the transmission probability is [itex]|R_1/L_1|^2[/itex]. These should sum to 1, and will if you solve the problem correctly.
 
Doesn't the transmission probability have to account for the difference in wave number k (difference in momentum)?
 
Thanks for the replies everyone. Sorry I'm so late in replying myself, my email screwed up :S
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K