Stuck on 6.16: Solving for Wavefunctions in Different Regimes

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around problem 6.16, which involves solving for wavefunctions in different regimes related to quantum mechanics, specifically in the context of bound states and potential wells. Participants are analyzing the wavefunctions for regions inside and outside a potential barrier.

Discussion Character

  • Mixed

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants express confusion regarding the assumptions of bound states versus the solutions provided, particularly the presence of oscillatory solutions at infinity. There is a debate about the implications of continuity conditions and the number of unknowns versus equations available for solving the problem.

Discussion Status

Multiple interpretations of the problem are being explored, with some participants questioning the validity of the given solutions and assumptions. Suggestions have been made to consider normalization and the continuity of the wavefunction to derive additional equations, although there is no explicit consensus on the correct approach.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the problem imposes constraints such as not normalizing the solutions and the assumption of a bound state, which complicates the analysis of the wavefunctions and the number of unknowns involved.

ehrenfest
Messages
2,001
Reaction score
1

Homework Statement


I am working on 6.16 at the following site:

http://mikef.org/files/phys_4241_hw14.pdf

I think that the solution given is given is wrong. I can get part a), however, I am just getting stuck on part b). So, the wavefunction in r < r_0 is

R(r) = A/r sin(k_1*r)

and the solution in r > r_0 is given by

R(r) = B/r exp(-k_2*r)

I have no idea how t do what they are asking in part b) since we have three unknowns, A, B and V_0 and only two equations: namely continuity at r_0 of R and R'. Is there something that I am missing?

Homework Equations


The Attempt at a Solution

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
What I'm not understanding is the fact that they tell you to assume you are in a bound state, but then they find oscillatory solutions even as r goes to infinity. Did they just say the nuclear force is binding for all r?? Since they are modeling the nuclear force, R(r) should decrease exponentially outside of r0. If you're dying to come up with a solution, use
m(D) = 2.014102 u
m(p) = 1.00727647 u
m(n) = 1.00866501 u

Where 931.502 MeV = 1 u
That should give you the actual binding energy of a deuterium nucleus, although I know this doesn't help you solve it the way they want you to.
 
As I said, I think that solution is totally wrong as you can see from the statement

"Then we must have E + V_0 > 0 or E > V_0."

But I think there is still a way to do the problem...

Here is more of my work:

For r < r_0 the only solution is R(r) = A/r sin (k_1*r), where k_1 =
sqrt((E+V_0)2m)/h-bar.

For r > r_0, I get
R(r) = B/r sin(k_2 r) + C/r cos (k_2 r) if E> 0
and
R(r) = D/r exp(-k_2 r) if E< 0
, where k_2 = sqrt(E2m)/h-bar.

So, for part b, since E is less than 0, I can use R(r) = D/r exp(-k_2 r)
for r > r_0. But, then there are 3 unknowns, A, D and V_0, and I do not
understand how I can solve for all any of them using only continuity.
 
Last edited:
Yes, I think it is wrong. It says assume a bound solution but at the beginning of the last paragraph they assume that E > 0 which should not be true for a bound solution in a potential of -V.

But, have you tried using normalization, continuity, and smoothness on Psi to give you 3 equations for your 4 unknowns A, B, C, and V?
 
dwintz02 said:
Yes, I think it is wrong. It says assume a bound solution but at the beginning of the last paragraph they assume that E > 0 which should not be true for a bound solution in a potential of -V.

But, have you tried using normalization, continuity, and smoothness on Psi to give you 3 equations for your 4 unknowns A, B, C, and V?

Part a says that I should not normalize the solutions. Anyway, do you think what I wrote in my last post is correct, reducing it to 3 unknowns?
 
anyone see what is going on here?
 
someone, please!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 46 ·
2
Replies
46
Views
5K
Replies
10
Views
4K