B Why does this term always approach 4?

  • B
  • Thread starter Thread starter houlahound
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Approach Term
houlahound
Messages
907
Reaction score
223
I have followed several derivations to obtain the formula for tunnelling probability in a finite square potential well.

the standard result that is actually an approximation to a more complex result is;

upload_2016-11-23_10-1-27.png


I get the derivation of this result shown in many standard texts.

what I do not get is the term before the exponential always approximates to the number 4.

I am not interested in verifying this with actual values for V, E.

I want to know algebraically why the term is always approximately equal to 4 for any values of V, E.

it is supposed to be obvious and probably is, eludes me atm.

authors often make a further approximation and ignore the entire term so they are always out by a factor of 4 on an already approximate answer.

when dealing with such small numbers is leaving the 4 out that pedagogically sound - that's a seprate question.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It certainly isn't close to 4 for "any" values. It's exactly 4 when V = 2 * E0. So I suppose there's some physical reason why V / E0 is usually close to 2. But I don't know why that would be.
 
houlahound said:
what I do not get is the term before the exponential always approximates to the number 4.

Can you give some references that make this claim?
 
  • Like
Likes Demystifier
not sure to be honest. will do a search.
 
Not an expert in QM. AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is quite different from the classical wave equation. The former is an equation for the dynamics of the state of a (quantum?) system, the latter is an equation for the dynamics of a (classical) degree of freedom. As a matter of fact, Schrödinger's equation is first order in time derivatives, while the classical wave equation is second order. But, AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is a wave equation; only its interpretation makes it non-classical...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
Is it possible, and fruitful, to use certain conceptual and technical tools from effective field theory (coarse-graining/integrating-out, power-counting, matching, RG) to think about the relationship between the fundamental (quantum) and the emergent (classical), both to account for the quasi-autonomy of the classical level and to quantify residual quantum corrections? By “emergent,” I mean the following: after integrating out fast/irrelevant quantum degrees of freedom (high-energy modes...
Back
Top