Talk:Finite potential well
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, which collaborates on articles related to physics. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. [FAQ] |
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating within physics. |
|
Help with this template Please rate this article, and then leave comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify its strengths and weaknesses. |
|
I just added the ref. to Griffiths, ie
- Griffiths, David J. (2005). Introduction to Quantum Mechanics, 2nd ed., Prentice Hall. ISBN 0131118927.
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)
Is it considered more standard to have the potential be 0 inside the box and a value Γ 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)
- I vote to rewrite it with the second convention. Pfalstad 01:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
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)
[edit] merge finite potential well w/ finite potential barrier
These are two totally different cases; the articles should not be merged. Pfalstad 02:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, don't merge! Bamse 04:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- 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)
- I see now that they differ in the potential energy function...my error.--GregRM 21:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Quantum Tunneling
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 ex 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)
