Talk:Finite potential well

Why does it when introducing u_0^2 make it proportional to L^2V_0 and later for the special case of the delta potential it is proportional u_0 without a square is proportional to L^2V_0? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laserphysicsguy (talk • contribs) 17:14, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled[edit]

I just added the ref. to Griffiths, ie

Griffiths, David J. (2005). Introduction to Quantum Mechanics (2^nd ed. ed.). Prentice Hall. ISBN 0131118927. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help)

as there wasn't one. It's practically identical as whats in the book on the pg90-95 area.

- Lorand 11:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is it considered more standard to have the potential be 0 inside the box and a value $\Gamma$ outside or to have the potential be zero everywhere except inside the box, where it would have a value of -V? I'm tempted to re-write the section with the second convention, unless there are strong objections. KristinLee 01:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I vote to rewrite it with the second convention. Pfalstad 01:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be helpful if more information was added to the page in general. It seems to be all equations and therefore not especially helpful to a physics student like me. Maybe a couple pictures or figures?

Anyone else think this article seems rather incomplete? The final result for the wave functions is missing, along with a discussion of the allowed energies. Also, I agree that the derivation should probably be redone so that the potential is zero outside the box. GhostTrain 04:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have started to rewrite this article with the convention of a potential of 0 outside the box and -V₀ inside: User:Crazyjimbo/Draft_of_Finite_potential_well. I think I have covered everything that is in the article currently but there is still a LOT more to add. I'd like to add a discussion of finding nuermical solutions, and the same sort of analysis when E > 0. This is my first major contribution to WP so I wrote it is as a draft to avoid trampling all over the page. Feedback is appreciated! - Crazyjimbo (talk) 20:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have continued this page to cover graphical solutions and links to the infinite square well,the delta-function potential and the spherical cavity. (I've stuck with the current convention as it is closer to the infinite square well case, and also the variable k is closer to the actual energy. (The conversion from one to the other is trivial; essentially the variables $\alpha$ and k interchange.) I think this page is fine now and can have the warning removed. As far as quantum tunnelling is concerned, I've changed "because of" to "cf" - they are closely related phenomena but with different observable consequences. Annafitzgerald (talk) 16:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

merge finite potential well w/ finite potential barrier[edit]

These are two totally different cases; the articles should not be merged. Pfalstad 02:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, don't merge! Bamse 04:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry...I took a quick look and thought they were the same...I will remove the merge notice.--GregRM 21:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see now that they differ in the potential energy function...my error.--GregRM 21:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quantum Tunneling[edit]

The first paragraph mentions Quantum Tunneling, but that effect is not measurable in this model, but rather at Finite potential barrier (QM). You could, however, conclude that something like Quantum Tunneling will happen at a Finite Potential Barrier-like situation, but, again, it is not something that can be observed in this model: so one should either link to that case and mention Quantum Tunneling as something that is apparent in this model, and measurable in that model, or one should delete that section altogether.

Maybe I ought to elaborate why I consider it unmeasurable, for it is true that the equation isn't zero at any point in the equation, but rather approaches zero as $e^{x}$ does for a negative x. However, I don't know if any observable phenomenons (maybe a lack of knowledge on my part) where one would have a finite potential and still observe 'particles' outside the well (mostly because the well is infinitely large), whereas there are many examples (such as alpha-decay, STM, etc.) that follow a more barrier-like potential.Boreras (talk) 17:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tips to get to B class or above[edit]

More referencing is needed (especially inline citations)
Images should be have captions
The table with the equation on the left and variables on the right is very awkward. It would be best to simply write the equation, then place the list of variables under it, rather than next to it.
Comparison with the Kronig-Penney model should be made when possible
More suggestions can be found here and here

This should be enough to get you started. I'll watch the page for the next two weeks (maybe more), so if you are stuck, or have questions, just add them below. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 14:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, keep in mind that wikipedia is not a physics textbook, but an encyclopedia. The article currently focuses mainly on explaining how to 'solve' the finite potential well problem in quantum mechanics. You might want to spend some time explaining why this problem is important and to who. You could for example spend some time on the role this problem plays in the didactics of teach Quantum mechanics. Then there is the history of the problem. Who came up with it, and why? Who first solved it? etc. This are typically subjects that people expect in an encylopia article. (TimothyRias (talk) 14:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Double Finite Well[edit]

Is the double finite potential covered anywhere? The Delta potencial page talks about the double delta case, but I don't see the double finite case. If not a section about the double well as a crude molocule model could be added here, Griffiths has a derivation. Timetraveler3.14 (talk) 23:12, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Higher Dimensions[edit]

The treatment is the usual in text books on QM. So far ok. Has somebody ever tried to do this in e.g. 2D? Would be nice to see how it works here, because it is not simply an extension of the 1D case. Thanks, in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.187.45.25 (talk) 15:55, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It indeed would be interesting to add a section talking about higher dimentions, espectially since this reveals some interesting physics. DiceTheRoller (talk) 16:42, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well written![edit]

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koitus~nlwiki (talk • contribs) 13:20, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Special case: narrow well[edit]

in the special case of the narrow well, the approximate equation becomes v^2 =v0^2 - v0^4. Where is the explanation for this statement? Why is this the case? 2A02:A45E:4B73:1:1DE8:5829:4A13:3C1A (talk) 11:57, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]