STATES OF A PARTICLE IN ONE

DIMENSION I
MAINLY PIECEWISE-CONSTANT
POTENTIALS

CREATED BY
GROUP 8:
RANGGA ALIF FARESTA (E1Q016056)
TEGAR AGUSFIAN MANDIRI (E1Q015065)
YOSIANDALIN IKALOR (E1Q016072)
NURUL AZIZIYAH (E1Q015051)
 8.1 One-Dimensional Piecewise-Constant Potentials Have to Do with the
Real World

The problem posed by a three-dimensional single-particle system is by now famil¬ iar.

If the system is conservative, its potential is independent of time. So its Hamiltonian (in
Cartesian coordinates) is

ℏ𝟐 𝝏𝟐 𝝏𝟐 𝝏𝟐
𝓗=− + +
𝟐𝒎 𝝏𝒙𝟐 𝝏𝒚𝟐 𝝏𝒛𝟐

and its wave functions satisfy the TDSE

ℏ𝟐 𝝏𝟐 𝝏𝟐 𝝏𝟐 𝜕
− + + + 𝑽 𝒙, 𝒚, 𝒛 𝜓 𝑥, 𝑦, 𝑧, 𝑡 = 𝑖ℏ 𝜓 𝑥, 𝑦, 𝑧, 𝑡
𝟐𝒎 𝝏𝒙𝟐 𝝏𝒚𝟐 𝝏𝒛𝟐 𝜕𝑡
 ℏ 𝟐 𝝏𝟐 𝝏𝟐 𝝏𝟐
ℋψ𝐸 (𝑥, 𝑦, 𝑧)= − 𝟐𝒎 𝝏𝒙𝟐 + + + 𝑽 𝒙, 𝒚, 𝒛 𝜓𝐸 𝑥, 𝑦, 𝑧, 𝑡 = 𝐸ψ𝐸 (𝑥, 𝑦, 𝑧)
𝝏𝒚𝟐 𝝏𝒛𝟐

For many three-dimensional systems we can reduce (8.3) to one (or more) one¬
dimensional equations. Under what physical conditions might such a simplification be
possible? Well, suppose the forces on the particle act in only one dimension. For example,
imagine a classical system that consists of two billiard balls connected by a spring whose
force constant is so large that gravity is negligible
Separation of Variables in the Three-Dimensional TISE
If the potential in Eq. (8.3) depends only on x, then there exist three-dimensional eigen¬
functions of Ti that are products of three one-dimensionalfunctions, each of which is
𝑥
associated with a constant energy: e.g. 𝜓𝐸 𝑥 with 𝐸𝑥. These separated Hamiltonian
eigenfunctions look like
𝑥 𝑥
𝜓𝐸 𝑥, 𝑦, 𝑧 = 𝜓𝐸 𝑥 =𝐸𝑥𝜓𝐸 𝑥
Each factor in this product eigenfunction depends on a single variable and satisfies a TISE in
that variable. For instance, the ^-dependent function in Eq. (8.4) satisfies the one-dimensional
TISE

ℏ𝟐 𝒅 𝟐 𝑥 𝑥
− + 𝑽(𝒙) 𝜓𝐸 𝑥 = 𝐸𝑥𝜓𝐸 𝑥
𝟐𝒎 𝒅𝒙𝟐
On Piecewise-Constant Potentials
In this chapter we’ll consider conservative, one-dimensional single-particle systems whose
potentials are piecewise constant. A piecewise-constant potential is one that is constant for all
values of x except at a finite number of discontinuities—points where it changes from one
constant value to another
 8.2 A Duplicity of States: Bound versus Unbound States

Because no forces confine a free particle, it can roam throughout space. In quantum
mechanics, this behavior is mirrored in the particle’s wave functions. We learned in Chap. 6
that no matter where we look for a free particle, we might find it

𝜓(𝑥, 𝑡) 2 0 𝑎𝑡 𝑎𝑙𝑙 𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒 𝑡 (𝑏𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑑 𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑠ቁ

𝑥⟶±∞

2
𝜓(𝑥, 𝑡) 0 𝑎𝑡 𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑟 𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒 𝑡 (𝑢𝑛𝑏𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑑 𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑠ቁ
𝑥⟶±∞

Equation (8.8) is just a mathematical statement of an old friend: the spatial localization of an
unbound wave packet 𝑖. 𝑒., (the normalization condition). Note, by the way, that this
condition is not limited to free particles; unbound states of a system may exist even if
𝑉(𝑥) ≠ 0. Be sure you appreciate the difference between the conditions (8.7) and (8.8).
The clue is in the qualifiers, “at all times” for bound states versus “at any particular time”
for unbound states. The wave function of an unbound state is spatially localized at any
particular time; but the wave function of a bound state is localized in the same region of
space (the vicinity ofthe potential) at all time
 Bound State Continuum State

Energies STATES
BOUND VS. CONTINUUM 𝐸𝑛 are quantizied 𝐸 > 0 are not quantizied

Degeneracy 𝐸𝑛 are not degenarate 𝐸 are 2-fold degenerate

Statinonary State 𝜓 𝑥, 𝑡 = 𝜓𝑛 (𝑥)𝑒 −𝑖𝐸𝑛𝑡/ћ 𝜓 𝑥, 𝑡 = 𝜓𝐸 (𝑥)𝑒 −𝑖𝐸𝑡/ћ

Spatial Function 𝜓𝑛 (𝑥) is normalizable 𝜓𝐸 (𝑥) are not normalizable

Boundary Condition 𝜓𝑛 (𝑥) 0 𝜓𝐸 (𝑥) ≤ ∞ (all x )

𝑥→±∞

General state function ∞

1 ∞
෍ 𝑐𝑛 𝜓𝑛 (𝑥)𝑒 −𝑖𝐸𝑛 𝑡/ћ න 𝐴(𝑘)𝑒 𝑖(𝑘𝑥−𝜔𝑡) 𝑑𝑘
𝑛 2𝜋 −∞
 8.7 BOUND STATES OF THE FINITE SQUARE WELL

Having probed the mysteries of scattering states, we now turn to bound

states. The bound- state counterpart to the extended continuum-state
example of § 8.6 is the symmetric finite square well of Fig. 8.20b,

𝐿
𝑉0 − ∞ < 𝑥 ≤ − 2
𝐿 𝐿
𝑉 𝑥 = 0 −2<𝑥 <2 (8.85)
𝐿
𝑉0 ≤𝑥<∞
2
A significant difference between the bound- and continuum-state problems follows
from the central contrasts between these two types of states: their boundary
conditions [Eq. (8.7) versus Eq. (8.8)] and their allowed energies. A major difficulty in
solving the TISE for bound states is that we don’t know the allowed, quantized
energies in advance. We must find these values by solving for Hamiltonian
eigenfunctions that obey the boundary conditions 𝜓𝐸 𝑥 → 0 𝑤ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒 𝑥 → ±∞ Only
such solutions can be normalized
∞
න 𝜓 ∗ 𝐸 𝑥 𝜓𝐸 𝑥 𝑑𝑥 = 1
−∞

Qualitative Deductions

The first cousin of the finite square well is the infinite square well (Chap. 7). (I strongly
recommend that you stop reading now, go back, and review this example.) In Example
7.2, we showed that this potential supports an infinite number of bound
stationary states, with energies: ∞
𝜓𝑛 (𝑥)
2 𝑥
cos 𝑛𝜋 𝑛 = 1,3,5, …
(∞) 𝜋 2 ħ2 𝐿 𝐿
𝐸𝑛 = 𝑛2 n=1,2,3,….. =
2𝑚𝐿2
2 𝑥
sin 𝑛𝜋 𝑛 = 2,4,6, …
𝐿 𝐿
 8.8 THE FINITE SQUARE WELL: THE ANSWERS

Binding energy is the amount of energy you would have to supply to the
particle to remove it from the well (with zero kinetic energy). With this
definition and Eqs. (8.96) for the wave number and decay constant, we can
rewrite the transcendental equations (8.97) as

𝑳 𝟐𝒎(𝑽𝟎 −𝝐𝒏 ) 𝑽𝟎 −𝟏/𝟐

𝒕𝒂𝒏 = −𝟏 n=1,3,5,..
𝟐 ħ 𝝐𝒏
𝑳 𝟐𝒎(𝑽𝟎 −𝝐𝒏 ) 𝑽𝟎 −𝟏/𝟐
𝒄𝒐𝒕 =− −𝟏 n=2,4,6,…
𝟐 ħ 𝝐𝒏
Reducing Clutter in the Transcendental Equations