Campuses:
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision | |||
| classes:2009:fall:phys4101.001:q_a_0918 [2009/09/18 14:59] – yk | classes:2009:fall:phys4101.001:q_a_0918 [2009/09/26 23:43] (current) – yk | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 61: | Line 61: | ||
| Is it related to the graph 2.6 and the fact that eq. 2.70 has linearly independent solutions for any value of E but, almost all of this solutions blow up exponentially at large x? | Is it related to the graph 2.6 and the fact that eq. 2.70 has linearly independent solutions for any value of E but, almost all of this solutions blow up exponentially at large x? | ||
| WHATS GOING ON? | WHATS GOING ON? | ||
| - | ===John Galt=== | + | ===John Galt 10:27 9/18=== |
| I am also not completely positive, but isn't the reason you need to have a E=.5h(bar)w value due to the fact that the power series in EQ. 2.79 blows up at other values? If so, it is just how the math works. I am not sure how to describe it in a qualitative or visual sense, I guess. I'm guessing that the math tools were chosen to follow the experimentally observed events, so a proper function had to be determined which would only allow probability functions to exist in places where the particle could actually be, so 2.6 is probably just showing that, yes, as a visual confirmation, | I am also not completely positive, but isn't the reason you need to have a E=.5h(bar)w value due to the fact that the power series in EQ. 2.79 blows up at other values? If so, it is just how the math works. I am not sure how to describe it in a qualitative or visual sense, I guess. I'm guessing that the math tools were chosen to follow the experimentally observed events, so a proper function had to be determined which would only allow probability functions to exist in places where the particle could actually be, so 2.6 is probably just showing that, yes, as a visual confirmation, | ||