The energy sure might be below the potential at some point and therefore give rise to classically forbidden existence of a particle, an "outside of bounds" particle, but how is it that it has E < 0 if V(x) is the ddf? Is it just a matter of what sign you stick in front of the delta function? I'd...
That's not the point I was trying to make though. The potential might as well fly off at -∞ and putting E < 0 just spews out the bound state. My concern was the actual choosing of E < 0. How can it be that that isn't just some relative choice of the reference frame but actually a TISE solution...
I'm coming here from going through the Dirac delta potential in QM to clear my mind about the case when E < 0, which as a result produces the single bound state solution in that potential. The thing that's vexing my soul(if we have one anyways) is the fact that a particle is taken to be in...
Thank you both so much! :D I was approaching the problem the way @pasmith did but @Pranav-Arora really opened my eyes on the "why". I am quite suprprised to be honest because I had never seen a single instance when while doing clever circumventions(like the one on @pasmith's first integral...
My only confusion about it relies on the fact that I just don't get the "why". Why exactly do I have to differentiate the outcome of the gaussian with respect to b? If it's some mathematical tool I'm not not acknowledging I'd be very appreciative of an explanation.
Homework Statement
The mathematical complication I'm having comes from Problem 1.9 in Griffiths' Introduction to Quantum Mechanics. I'm just going to provide the mathematics here:
The norm squared of the wave function is \ \left|\Psi \right|^{2} = (\frac{2am}{h\pi})^{1/2}...
OMG THANK YOU SO MUCH! For me, a physical problem ends when there is found a final formula that has everything known on the right side and the unknown on the left so as far as that goes I seem to be right. Getting a nice and clean formula in the end is the most exhilarating thing for me! The...
Oh I am so sorry the formula for t had a writing mistake in it. I had wrote the R^2 in the denominator inside the square roots mistakenly. Now I reuploaded the attachment to amend it. I had calculated for R not R^2 though, so it's all fine in that aspect.
So I found this problem in my 10th grade Physics workbook and since its test time tomorrow I must be able to work everything out. The problem I'm having here is just the calculations which give me a time short of one hour from the answer on the book. Anysways, please have a go:
Homework...
@ZapperZ Thank you so much for responding! Actually, the one problem that came up in my mind while concocting the idea of the 4D space was to depict it differently from the 4 dimensional Minkowski space, because I knew that would just cause confusion, so I didn't even touch upon the subject in...
Hey there peers :smile:
I'm really keen on explaining science to others and I've been practicing it with my classmates lately, so I thought why not give it a try and make my first ever youtube video about a seemingly hard concept which is a space of 4 dimensions. I made this post just because...
I wasn't arguing about whether mathematicians use brackets or not I was just saying that the bra ket notation is mathematical, otherwise we wouldn't use it to describe nature.
The ket and the bra are definitely mathematical symbols used in a mathematical way. To say they don't belong in mathematics is kind of not the smartest thing because everything you can do with them falls into the realm of math. Except a very interesting idea I have of a t-shirt but not now...