Timeline for Contradiction in my understanding of wavefunction in finite potential well
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 27, 2022 at 21:13 | vote | accept | jambajuice | ||
| May 27, 2022 at 10:44 | comment | added | ZeroTheHero | Some of the difficulties with the momentum and kinetic energy of the infinite well are discussed here physics.stackexchange.com/q/362305/36194 or in this well-known paper arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0103153 (arXiv version). | |
| May 27, 2022 at 10:41 | comment | added | ZeroTheHero | The infinite well is a strange animal because the solution $\psi$ must be $0$ at the ends, and I would not trust a qualitative graphical method in this case. In cases other than the infinite well, $\psi(x)$ can extend smoothly and lazily in the classically forbidden region rather than be forced to $0$. In fact, if you solve (numerically) the finite well with a bump, I remember the probability would be larger in the shallower region (I have not done this in a while but that’s what I remember). | |
| May 27, 2022 at 8:36 | comment | added | jambajuice | If you look at this link : theory.physics.manchester.ac.uk/~judith/AQMI/… , seems to be saying the opposite. | |
| May 27, 2022 at 8:35 | comment | added | jambajuice | So just to also get this clear, if I were to have a particle in an INFINITE potential well between $x=0$ and $x=a$, and slightly perturb the inside, so that for $x>a/2$, we have a potential of $V_{0}$ - I expect the wavefunction to have a higher amplitude on the right? | |
| May 27, 2022 at 5:06 | history | edited | ZeroTheHero | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 15 characters in body
|
| May 26, 2022 at 22:04 | history | edited | ZeroTheHero | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
edited body
|
| May 26, 2022 at 21:46 | history | undeleted | ZeroTheHero | ||
| May 26, 2022 at 21:44 | history | deleted | ZeroTheHero | via Vote | |
| May 26, 2022 at 21:36 | history | answered | ZeroTheHero | CC BY-SA 4.0 |