0
$\begingroup$

In the book Quantum Mechanics by N. Zettili (page 224, 2nd edittion), the potential $V(x)$ is defined as: $$V(x) = \begin{cases} 0 & ; \,x \lt 0 \\ V_0 & ; \, 0 \le x \le a \\ 0 & ; \, x \gt a \\ \end{cases}$$ For the case $E \gt V_0$, the wave functions in the regions: $$\psi(x) = \begin{cases} \psi_1(x)=Ae^{ik_1x}+Be^{-ik_1x} & ; \,x \le 0 \\ \psi_2(x)=Ce^{ik_2x}+De^{-ik_2x} & ; \, 0 \lt x \lt a \\ \psi_3(x)=Ee^{ik_1x} & ; \, x \ge a \\ \end{cases}$$

How does the case ($0 \le x \le a)$ of $V(x)$ correspond to the case ($0 \lt x \lt a$) of $\psi(x)$? How is the equality sign moves to the first and third regions? Why and how does the domain condition change?

Some books like Griffiths and also on Wikipedia, I don't find any equal sign there.
The three cases are given for: (i) $x \lt 0$ (ii) $0 \lt x \lt a$ (iii) $x>a$.

Don't we need to include $x=0$ and $x=a$ ? If not, then how can be the four boundary conditions applied on the wavefunction $\psi(x)$?
What am I missing? I am really confused.
TIA

Improve this question
$\endgroup$
11
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ In general one requires the wave function to be continuous everywhere. Hence by gluing the solutions in the different regions together you effectively remove this problem. $\endgroup$
    – NDewolf
    Commented Mar 12, 2020 at 14:56
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, I know it. But it doesn't clear my confusion. $\endgroup$
    – raf
    Commented Mar 12, 2020 at 15:12
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ It sounds like people were careless about the boundaries. Nothing deep here. Because the solution must be continuous, the functions on both sides of a boundary point give the same value. So it doesn't matter which function you use at the boundary. So people didn't worry about it. $\endgroup$
    – mmesser314
    Commented Mar 12, 2020 at 15:21
  • $\begingroup$ Can it be written as: $$V(x) = \begin{cases} 0 & ; \,x \le 0 \\ V_0 & ; \, 0 \le x \le a \\ 0 & ; \, x \ge a \\ \end{cases} $$ $$\psi(x) = \begin{cases} \psi_1(x)=Ae^{ik_1x}+Be^{-ik_1x} & ; \,x \le 0 \\ \psi_2(x)=Ce^{ik_2x}+De^{-ik_2x} & ; \, 0 \le x \le a \\ \psi_3(x)=Ee^{ik_1x} & ; \, x \ge a \\ \end{cases}$$ ? $\endgroup$
    – raf
    Commented Mar 12, 2020 at 15:38
  • $\begingroup$ @raf That's not correct. You're assigning two different values to $V(x)$ both at $x=0$ and $x=a$, in that way it's not a function. You can't have all of the domains be closed, if one is closed the next one should be open. $\endgroup$
    – user137661
    Commented Mar 12, 2020 at 15:46

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
1
$\begingroup$

The boundary conditions demand continuity of the wave function and its derivative at the boundary. For example, for $x=0$ we need to have \begin{equation} \psi_1(x) = \psi_2(x), \psi_1'(x) = \psi_2'(x). \end{equation} This means that both(!!) $\psi_1(x)$ and $\psi_2(x)$ are defined at this point (and equal)!

This is a rather fine point, and the books seem rather sloppy on it, since it doesn't change much in practice.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
8
  • $\begingroup$ So, can it be written as: $$V(x) = \begin{cases} 0 & ; \,x \le 0 \\ V_0 & ; \, 0 \le x \le a \\ 0 & ; \, x \ge a \\ \end{cases} $$ $$\psi(x) = \begin{cases} \psi_1(x)=Ae^{ik_1x}+Be^{-ik_1x} & ; \,x \le 0 \\ \psi_2(x)=Ce^{ik_2x}+De^{-ik_2x} & ; \, 0 \le x \le a \\ \psi_3(x)=Ee^{ik_1x} & ; \, x \ge a \\ \end{cases}$$ ? $\endgroup$
    – raf
    Commented Mar 12, 2020 at 15:36
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The potential should not have the overlapping conditions (otherwise $V_0$ has to be 0). $\endgroup$
    – NDewolf
    Commented Mar 12, 2020 at 15:37
  • $\begingroup$ @NDewolf I agree. $\endgroup$
    – Roger V.
    Commented Mar 12, 2020 at 15:39
  • $\begingroup$ @raf For piece-wise functions you really should only have one condition for each x value $\endgroup$
    – BioPhysicist
    Commented Mar 12, 2020 at 15:40
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @raf It won't really matter for the final solution. Aaron has a point that, once you use strict inequalities in the definition of the potential you should have only one wave function there - which is the opposite of my answer. It is a bit of a paradox, but it has to do with the fact that such rectangular barriers do not exist in real world. $\endgroup$
    – Roger V.
    Commented Mar 12, 2020 at 15:44

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.