Understanding the Infinite Square Well Problem | Bound States & Eigenfunctions

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter quasar_4
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    General
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the infinite square well problem in quantum mechanics, specifically focusing on bound states and eigenfunctions. Participants explore the implications of the Hamiltonian and momentum operators, the expectation value of momentum, and the probability density of finding a particle within the well.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant asserts that the Hamiltonian and momentum operators commute, suggesting they share a set of eigenfunctions, but questions arise regarding the implications of the infinite potential barriers on this assertion.
  • Another participant counters that the Hamiltonian and momentum operators do not commute due to the presence of an external potential, challenging the initial claim.
  • There is a discussion about the expectation value of momentum, with one participant stating that it must be zero for bound states, as a nonzero value would imply the particle is escaping the well.
  • Concerns are raised about the physical interpretation of the probability density, particularly regarding the greater likelihood of finding the particle at the center of the well compared to the edges, with one participant expressing uncertainty about the physical reasoning behind this observation.
  • A later reply clarifies that the Hamiltonian and momentum operators only commute for free particles, indicating that this must be checked in other scenarios.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express disagreement regarding the commutation of the Hamiltonian and momentum operators, with differing views on the implications of the infinite square well's potential barriers. The discussion remains unresolved on some aspects of the physical reasoning behind the probability density and the implications of momentum in bound states.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights limitations in understanding the relationship between operators in the presence of potential barriers and the interpretation of probability density functions in quantum mechanics. Some assumptions about the nature of bound states and their implications for momentum are also under scrutiny.

quasar_4
Messages
273
Reaction score
0
I need someone to tell me if I'm understanding things. :shy:

Let's say that we're studying the infinite square well problem, where the well extends from -L/2 to L/2 in 1 dimension. In this case, the energy of the system, E, is less than the potential at the barriers, so the eigenstates of the Hamiltonian (obviously) correspond to bound states.

Here is where I am confused - please tell me what I am thinking correctly and incorrectly:

- the Hamiltonian and momentum operators commute, so in general, they share a set of eigenfunctions. But the particle in this well can't be in an eigenstate of momentum, because it's in a bound state (and eigenstates of momentum correspond to scattering problems)?

- We know that the expectation value of momentum, <p>, must be zero for a particle in the well because bound states are stationary states, and a nonzero <p> would indicate that the particle was escaping the well (is this a good sort of physical reasoning)?

- The probability of finding the particle is greater at the center of the well then at the edges , but I can't really explain this physically (it seems to be more a mathematical result in my mind than a physical one, and I'm not sure how to describe the probability of finding the particle at some point, without thinking of probability density functions).
 
Physics news on Phys.org
quasar_4 said:
I need someone to tell me if I'm understanding things. :shy:

Let's say that we're studying the infinite square well problem, where the well extends from -L/2 to L/2 in 1 dimension. In this case, the energy of the system, E, is less than the potential at the barriers, so the eigenstates of the Hamiltonian (obviously) correspond to bound states.

Here is where I am confused - please tell me what I am thinking correctly and incorrectly:

- the Hamiltonian and momentum operators commute,
no, they do not. There is an external potential (the infinite barriers at +-L/2) which obviously makes the system not translational invariant.

so in general, they share a set of eigenfunctions.

no. act on an eigenfuntion with d/dx... do you get the same function back again? no.
But the particle in this well can't be in an eigenstate of momentum, because it's in a bound state (and eigenstates of momentum correspond to scattering problems)?

- We know that the expectation value of momentum, <p>, must be zero for a particle in the well because bound states are stationary states, and a nonzero <p> would indicate that the particle was escaping the well (is this a good sort of physical reasoning)?

- The probability of finding the particle is greater at the center of the well then at the edges , but I can't really explain this physically (it seems to be more a mathematical result in my mind than a physical one, and I'm not sure how to describe the probability of finding the particle at some point, without thinking of probability density functions).
 
Ah - so actually, H and p only (necessarily) commute for the case of the free particle. In any other situation I would have to check.
 
quasar_4 said:
Ah - so actually, H and p only (necessarily) commute for the case of the free particle. In any other situation I would have to check.

Correct. And the particle in a box is not free (because there is a confining box/potential).
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
4K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 67 ·
3
Replies
67
Views
8K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 60 ·
3
Replies
60
Views
8K