Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- classes:2009:fall:phys4101.001:q_a_1005 [2009/10/02 23:44] – gebrehiwet
+++ classes:2009:fall:phys4101.001:q_a_1005 [2009/10/05 20:08] (current) – yk
@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-===== Oct 5 (Mon) =====
+===== Oct 5 (Mon) delta-function potential Wells=====
 **Return to Q&A main page: [[Q_A]]**\\
-**Q&A for the previous lecture: [[Q_A_1002]]**\\
+**Q&A for the previous lecture: [[Q_A_0930]]**\\
-**Q&A for the upcoming quiz: [[Q_A_1007]]**
+**Q&A for the upcoming quiz: [[Q_A_1007]]**\\
+**Q&A for Quiz 1: [[Q_A_1002]]**
 **If you want to see lecture notes, click [[lec_notes]]**
 **Main class wiki page: ** [[home]]
 ==== prest121 9/30/2009 13:40 ====
 I see in Griffiths (and in class) how we determined <math>v_g = \frac{d\omega}{dk}</math>.  But how do we get <math>v_p = \frac{\omega}{k}</math>?
@@ Line 15: / Line 17: @@
 The figure 2.10(b) in Griffiths is not correct because <math>\phi(k)</math> should be negative for some k, am I right?
+//**Yuichi**// You are right.  I never noticed this before.
 ====Anaximenes - 16:10 - 10/02/09====
 What did everyone think of the test?
@@ Line 23: / Line 25: @@
 ===Schrodinger's Dog - 11:43PM- 10/02/09===
 I agree with nikif002 totally, the integrals for 1 was out of the blues. Besides that, it was a fair test.
+===Andromeda -9:06- 10/4/09===
+it might have helped to use the expression for x and p with the a+/a- operator, then you would not have to do integrals! and even though i forgot this on test myself, we should all remember it for the next test.
-====Links====
+===Schrodinger's Dog - 2:10PM- 10/04/09===
-**Return to Q&A main page: [[Q_A]]**\\
+The ladder operators only work for the Simple Harmonic Potential, and we were dealing with the infinite potential well. But that is a good idea know the less, construct a raising an lowering for a infinite square well and see what happens.
-**Q&A for the previous lecture: [[Q_A_1002]]**\\
-**Q&A for the upcoming quiz: [[Q_A_1007]]**
+===David Hilbert's hat - 11:00PM- 10/04/09===
+I felt like the test covered the right range between regurgitation and doing things completely new - some material was already done but mostly it was a slight change from things we've already done. As far as the integrals in problem 1 go, it seems like since they have been in so many homework problems that you should be able to do them off the top of your head/on the fly, which seems like a bit of work to learn but really useful considering how many times we have done them and probably will end up doing them in the future.
+===Captain America - 10:09- 10/05/09===
+I thought the test was okay even though I confused myself over the ladder operators and probably got a 0 on that question as a result.  I'll agree with everyone else that the integrals shouldn't have been expected to be known since I'm pretty sure most of us just looked them up on an integral chart when we had similar ones for the homework.  A hint for the next time they come up though, try switching the sin and cos terms into Euler's formula with <math>e^(i\theta)</math> terms as they are much more straightforward to integrate than things like sin squared.
+====Cthulhu Food - 10:30- 10/05/09====
+On page 78 Griffiths says that κ is real.  How can κ be real if E is positive?  Can E be negative?
+===Captain America - 10:43- 10/05/09===
+In the example here we are only considering bound states, which all have a negative E value by the definition of bound states (since the potential is defined as 0 and the bottom of the well is defined as <math>-V_0</math>).  κ is only real in these situations, and for scattering states where the E is positive κ will have an imaginary term I believe.
+==== time to move on ====
+It's time to move on to the next Q_A: [[Q_A_1007]]
+--------------------------------
+**Return to Q&A main page: [[Q_A]]**\\
+**Q&A for the previous lecture: [[Q_A_0930]]**\\
+**Q&A for the upcoming quiz: [[Q_A_1007]]**\\
+**Q&A for Quiz 1: [[Q_A_1002]]**

User Tools

Differences

Page Tools