Ok here's a potential I invented and am trying to solve:
$$ V(x) = \begin{cases} -V_0&0
and V(−x)=V(x) (Even potential)
I solved it twice and I got the same nonsensical transcendental equation for the allowed energies:
−k√z0−k2e2kb+e2kae2kb−e2ka=tan(b√z0−k2).
, where k=√−2mE/ℏ and z0=2mV0/ℏ2
The problem is that when I take the limit as b→a (the ordinary infinite square well) I get a division by 0.
So is there something fundamentally wrong with trying to solve this potential? Is it wrong to have an Infinite potential and bury some of it under the 0 (negative potential) ? Note: I am solving it for negative energies (bound bound states?).
EDIT by CZ, for readability and analytic continuation of l.h.side, cf. Gilbert et al.: −k√z0−k2coth(k(b−a)) .
Answer
The potential you have written is perfectly legitimate, let's do the derivation from scratch: $$ V(x) = \begin{cases} -V_0&0
and V(−x)=V(x) the Hamiltonian will commute with the parity operator [ˆH,ˆP]=0, therefore the eigenstates of the energy will be eigenstates of the parity operator too. Also, we can solve the problem in the interval [0,a] with $b0(youcaneasilycheckthatifyoustartedfromtheconditiontogettheboundstatesinsidethefinitewellyouwouldgetanimpossibleconditionfortheinfiniteoneatthepointx=a$)
Region [0,b]:
The Shrodinger equation is −ℏ22m∇2ψ−V0ψ=Eψ
Region [b,a]:
Here the Shrodinger equation is: ℏ22m∇2ϕ=Eϕϕ(a)=0
Now we have to match the solutions in x=b. (we have to match the derivatives too since the general solution must be C2)
ψ+(b)=ϕ+(b)ψ′+(b)=ϕ′+(b)
C1cos(ωb)=A1cos(kb)C1ωsin(ωb)=A1ksin(kb)
Now, if you do b→a you get that tan(2n+12π)→∞ which means that cos(ωb)=0 which means that ω=2n+12bπ (also k vanishes) which is the usual energy for the infinite well.
The limit b→0 is consistent too. Consider equation (1) written as ω=ktan(kb)tan(ωb)
No comments:
Post a Comment