Solving schrodinger, reflection coefficient

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around solving the Schrödinger equation for a particle encountering a potential barrier defined in three regions. Participants explore the mathematical solutions for each region and the implications for the reflection coefficient, addressing conceptual questions about the nature of the solutions in classically forbidden regions.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents the potential function and the corresponding solutions to the Schrödinger equation for three regions, questioning the nature of the solutions in regions II and III.
  • Another participant explains that the absence of an imaginary unit in the solution for region II indicates a classically forbidden region where the probability of finding the particle decays exponentially.
  • There is a discussion about why region III only has a single term, with one participant suggesting it relates to the assumption of the particle coming from the left.
  • A participant questions the validity of including both terms in the solution for region II, arguing that mathematically it is still valid but not typically assumed due to the physical context.
  • Further clarification is provided that in regions I and III, the potential is zero, allowing for both terms, while in region II, the potential is greater than the energy, leading to an imaginary component in the wave function.
  • Participants discuss the implications of reflected waves in regions I and II, noting that the left-moving terms represent reflections from barriers.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the inclusion of terms in the wave functions for region II, with some arguing for their mathematical validity while others emphasize the physical context that typically excludes them. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the appropriateness of certain solutions.

Contextual Notes

Participants mention potential typographical errors in the definitions of parameters and the need for careful consideration of the mathematical forms of the solutions based on the potential energy in different regions.

SoggyBottoms
Messages
53
Reaction score
0
Consider the potential

<br /> V(x) =<br /> \begin{cases}<br /> 0, &amp; x &lt; -a &amp; (I) \\<br /> +W, &amp; -a &lt; x &lt; a &amp; (II) \\<br /> 0, &amp; x &gt; a &amp; (III)<br /> \end{cases}<br />

for a particle coming in from the left (-\infty) with energy E (0 < E < W). Give the solution to the Schrödinger equation for I, II and III and use these to calculate the reflection coefficient.

I have the answer to this problem in front of me, but I don't understand. First they calculate the solution to the Schrödinger equation for I, II and III:

\psi_I(x) = Ae^{ikx} + Be^{-ikx}, \ \mbox{with} \ k = \frac{\sqrt{2mE}}{\hbar}

\psi_{II}(x) = Ce^{\kappa x} + De^{-\kappa x}, \ \mbox{with} \ \kappa = \frac{\sqrt{2m(E - W)}}{\hbar}

\psi_{III}(x) = Fe^{i k x}, \ \mbox{with} \ k = \frac{\sqrt{2mE}}{\hbar}

I understand \psi_I, but not \psi_{II} and \psi_{III}. Why is there no i in \psi_{II}? And why is \psi_{III} only a single term? I imagine it has something to do with the particle coming from the left?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
SoggyBottoms said:
Why is there no i in \psi_{II}?
Because these are classically forbidden solutions, and the probability of the particle being found in such a region exponentially decays.

And why is \psi_{III} only a single term? I imagine it has something to do with the particle coming from the left?

Correct, the other term would represent some particle coming in from the right (which is usually not assumed).
 
Nabeshin said:
Because these are classically forbidden solutions, and the probability of the particle being found in such a region exponentially decays.

If I were to solve the equation for II, then Ce^{i \kappa x} + De^{-i \kappa x} is mathematically still a valid solution right? I don't understand why it is not allowed.

Nabeshin said:
Correct, the other term would represent some particle coming in from the right (which is usually not assumed).

But why do I and II have two terms if the second term represents a particle coming from the right? Shouldn't they have only one term too then?
 
SoggyBottoms said:
If I were to solve the equation for II, then Ce^{i \kappa x} + De^{-i \kappa x} is mathematically still a valid solution right? I don't understand why it is not allowed.

Nope. You should go through and solve why these are the solutions here, but essentially you have something like (don't quote me exactly on this) \kappa \sim \sqrt{E-V} So in the regions I and III, V=0 and this is real and fine. But in the region where V=V0>E, this is imaginary, which is why the thing you would normally write, e^(i*k*x), goes to e^(-kx) (Where now k in this expression is understood to be the real part). [I think there is a typo in what you wrote somewhere, and the sign inside your definition of kappa should be switched so that it is by definition real]


But why do I and II have two terms if the second term represents a particle coming from the right? Shouldn't they have only one term too then?

In region I, the term moving to the left represents the reflected wave off of the barrier between regions I/II. In region II, similarly, the term moving to the left represents the reflected wave off the barrier between II/III.
 
Thanks!
 

Similar threads

Replies
8
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K