Skip to main content
13 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Oct 5, 2019 at 4:04 history bumped CommunityBot This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed.
Jun 3, 2019 at 7:02 history bumped CommunityBot This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed.
Mar 16, 2017 at 5:28 history edited Qmechanic CC BY-SA 3.0
deleted 5 characters in body; edited tags
Mar 16, 2017 at 4:13 answer added ZeroTheHero timeline score: 1
Mar 15, 2017 at 14:10 comment added ZeroTheHero @garyp I know what you mean, especially if it's morning for you.
Mar 15, 2017 at 14:00 comment added garyp @ZeroTheHero Yes. Typing faster than the speed of thought.
Mar 15, 2017 at 13:57 comment added ZeroTheHero @garyp the higher wave vectors would come out "naturally" by enforcing the conditions at the boundaries, which could have multiple solutions.
Mar 15, 2017 at 13:51 comment added garyp Your "general solution" is not. You don't allow for higher wave vectors. Also, if your solution is instead a "particular" solution for a particular eigenvalue, you should be able to find that eigenvalue from Schrodinger's eqn. Try to find the eigenvalue for your solution and see what you get.
Mar 15, 2017 at 13:39 review First posts
Mar 15, 2017 at 13:43
Mar 15, 2017 at 13:39 comment added ZeroTheHero If your boundaries are at $x=\pm L/2$, why do you use a condition like $\psi(0)=0$, which is clearly NOT correct? Have you considered working backwards: starting from the solution between $x=0$ and $x=L$ and making the substitution $x\to x+L/2$ so as to shift the potential between $-L/2$ and $L/2$?
Mar 15, 2017 at 13:39 comment added Michael Seifert The third unknown is usually determined by requiring $\psi(x)$ be normalized, i.e., $\int |\psi(x)|^2 dx = 1$.
Mar 15, 2017 at 13:37 history edited ZeroTheHero CC BY-SA 3.0
fixed minor math typesetting and minor grammar.
Mar 15, 2017 at 13:35 history asked Dogtard CC BY-SA 3.0