Solving QM Griffiths 2.28: Transmission Coefficient

  • Thread starter Thread starter genxhis
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Griffiths
AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on solving a quantum mechanics problem regarding the transmission coefficient for a wave packet encountering Dirac delta wells. The solution involves dividing the space into three regions and applying boundary conditions to reduce the number of unknowns. The derived transmission coefficient is expressed in terms of beta, which relates to the strength of the potential wells. Participants express a desire for validation of the solution, acknowledging the complexity and tediousness of the calculations involved. Ultimately, the process of reviewing the solution aids in understanding the problem better.
genxhis
Messages
37
Reaction score
1
The problem asks for the transmission coefficient for a wave packet with energy approximately E passing through a potential function with dirac delta wells of strength alpha at x = -a and x = +a. To solve the problem I split the region into the three obvious intervals [-inf, -a], [-a, a], and [a, +inf]. For the first two regions I expressed the solutions as (A or C) exp(i k x) + (B or D) exp(-i k x) and for the last as E exp(i k x) where k = sqrt(2 m E)/hbar. I then applied the two contraints at the two boundary conditions to reduce the five unknowns to just one. Finally I did some more algebra to find the trasmission coefficient as the square of (E/A). But the entire process was lengthy and tedious. I was wondering if someone could validate this answer:

T = \frac{1}{1 + 2 \beta^2[ (1+\beta^2) + (1-\beta^2)\cos 4ka -2\beta \sin4ka ]}​


where \beta = (m \alpha)/(\hbar k).
 
Physics news on Phys.org
There's no better checking than the one you can do it yourself by making sure your method & calculations were correct.

I think no one around here will do the calculations at this problem,just to agree or disagree with your answer.

Daniel.
 
your right, sorry. i was hoping someone could recognize this as a special case of a more general problem or simply point out that the answer is unviable. but, I've looked it over more carefully, and i think it is. in any case, recapitulating what i did helps me understand it a little better.
 
I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...
Back
Top