| Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revision |
| classes:2009:fall:phys4101.001:q_a_1016 [2009/10/15 21:57] – x500_szutz003 | classes:2009:fall:phys4101.001:q_a_1016 [2009/10/17 15:05] (current) – x500_choxx169 |
|---|
| |
| **Main class wiki page: ** [[home]] | **Main class wiki page: ** [[home]] |
| | |
| | |
| |
| ==== East End 10/14/09 3:10 pm ==== | ==== East End 10/14/09 3:10 pm ==== |
| === prest121 10/15 20:55 === | === prest121 10/15 20:55 === |
| The scattering problem is asymmetric because we choose to define it that way. If we look at the situation of a particle interacting with a potential barrier or well, we obtain equations for the wavefunction in each region. We *choose* to look at the problem in this way: we are sending particles in from the left side. Therefore, the particles hit the barrier or cross the well heading to the right. Some might be reflected back to the left by the barrier/well. Or they will pass over the well or through the barrier and continue on to the right. Once the particles are past the barrier/well, there is no reason for them to ever be traveling to the left. | The scattering problem is asymmetric because we choose to define it that way. If we look at the situation of a particle interacting with a potential barrier or well, we obtain equations for the wavefunction in each region. We *choose* to look at the problem in this way: we are sending particles in from the left side. Therefore, the particles hit the barrier or cross the well heading to the right. Some might be reflected back to the left by the barrier/well. Or they will pass over the well or through the barrier and continue on to the right. Once the particles are past the barrier/well, there is no reason for them to ever be traveling to the left. |
| |
| ====liux0756 10/15 12:15==== | ====liux0756 10/15 12:15==== |
| I am interested in figure 2.19. We can see that at certain energies the transmission coeffiecient is 1, while in the energies between them the transmission coefficient is less than 1. Is this property useful for some practical applications? | I am interested in figure 2.19. We can see that at certain energies the transmission coeffiecient is 1, while in the energies between them the transmission coefficient is less than 1. Is this property useful for some practical applications? |
| I'm pretty sure this is why some materials are transparent, while others are opaque. More correctly, that materials are transparent at some frequencies and to some particles and opaque for others. Tons of practical applications, eh? Think transparent aluminum, a la Star Trek. | I'm pretty sure this is why some materials are transparent, while others are opaque. More correctly, that materials are transparent at some frequencies and to some particles and opaque for others. Tons of practical applications, eh? Think transparent aluminum, a la Star Trek. |
| |
| | ==Spherical Chicken== |
| | In thinking about this graph, and looking up some stuff, I read that transmission coefficients can be composed of subsequent transmission coefficients, T(a)... perhaps what the graph is showing us is that there are certain "Eigenstates" of the function, and that there are other compositions of these states -- the points between the peaks and troughs. Are the coefficients themselves similar in form to the wave equations their in? <math>\Psi(x)=\psi<x_1>+\psi<x_2>...</math> |
| | |
| | |
| | === Zeno 10/15 10:30 === |
| | Interesting question. I'd like to add that I thought of a way to interpret the figure classically, and I wonder if someone can confirm or deny my interpretation: so the transmission coefficient is (approximately) the probability that a particle of energy E will cross the potential barrier. If you consider thousands of "bouncy balls" each with energy E (that don't lose energy as they bounce) bouncing around inside a physical well similar to thousands of waves oscillating in a potential well, a few of the balls whose phase was correct to reach a maximum at or near the boundary could cross the physical boundary. The higher the energy, the more likely the balls are to escape; however, even a highly energetic ball with the a certain phase could bounce into the barrier wall and be reflected back. As the energy of the balls increase the barrier becomes less significant, and as E approaches infinity the potential barrier becomes negligible and all of the balls will escape (T->1). I know there are a few slight differences between the concept of bouncing balls and oscillating waves, but does this sound like a reasonable classical interpretation? |
| | By the way, I like East End's explanation regarding the phases of photons and barriers of solids translating to opacity. |
| | |
| | ==Spherical Chicken== |
| | But why would there be those levels of energy? In general, I like our picture, that higher energy creates less significance of the well -- but why would there be those discrete levels that are more or less transparent? |
| | ===spillane=== |
| | Consider eq. 2.171 the energies are the same old energies associated with energy quantization. Which occurs at discrete allowed energy levels represented by 2.171. So i feel like the corresponding energy levels represented in figure 2.19 come from this eq. En=n²± Vo this will only give discrete energy levels when this difference is precisely one of the allowed energy states of the system. Leading to complete transparency. |
| ====Schrodinger's Dog 10/15 8:24pm==== | ====Schrodinger's Dog 10/15 8:24pm==== |
| Can anyone tell me why differentiability boundary condition doesn't necessarily hold for a infinite square well? | Can anyone tell me why differentiability boundary condition doesn't necessarily hold for a infinite square well? |
| ===Pluto 4ever 10/15 9:41PM=== | ===Pluto 4ever 10/15 9:41PM=== |
| I'm not entirely sure as to why they wouldn't since the only thing we really changed between the two systems is that V is now infinite. Therefore, the chance of a particle escaping the well is non-existent making R=1. Unless, of course, if the walls become transparent. | I'm not entirely sure as to why they wouldn't since the only thing we really changed between the two systems is that V is now infinite. Therefore, the chance of a particle escaping the well is non-existent making R=1. Unless, of course, if the walls become transparent. |
| | |
| | === Zeno 10/16 9AM === |
| | That's a very good question... the wave function has to be zero outside the infinite square well, and the slope of the sine function is definitely not zero at the well walls; the transmission coefficient could never be greater than zero for an infinite square well, suggested by intuition as well as eqns [2.169] and [2.171]. Griffiths, on pg 71. eqn [2.121], states that <math>\frac{d \psi}{d x}</math> must be continuous //except// at points where potential is infinite, such as the delta function or the wall of the infinite square well. |
| | |
| | ===spillane=== |
| | This wiki keeps boot'en me off when i go to save what i have edited. is there some limited time frame to editing are is this a common problem, seems to be a new one for me.It happens for creating lecture notes as well, frustrating! |
| | |
| | ===Yuichi=== You have 15 minutes of inaction. Then if someone else wants to edit the same wiki, s/he will have a precedence. but as long as you are typing, you should be able to keep your edit. If you are losing the edit even if you are not leaving the edit for more than 15 minutes, let me know. I will check with the systems person. |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| |
| ---------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------- |
| **Q&A for the previous lecture: [[Q_A_1014]]**\\ | **Q&A for the previous lecture: [[Q_A_1014]]**\\ |
| **Q&A for the next lecture: [[Q_A_1019]]** | **Q&A for the next lecture: [[Q_A_1019]]** |
| |