Mercurial > dylan
diff bk/bk2.org @ 3:44d3dc936f6a
moved backup files
author | Robert McIntyre <rlm@mit.edu> |
---|---|
date | Fri, 28 Oct 2011 00:06:37 -0700 |
parents | org/bk2.org@f743fd0f4d8b |
children |
line wrap: on
line diff
1.1 --- /dev/null Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000 1.2 +++ b/bk/bk2.org Fri Oct 28 00:06:37 2011 -0700 1.3 @@ -0,0 +1,97 @@ 1.4 +#+TITLE: Bugs in Quantum Mechanics 1.5 +#+AUTHOR: Dylan Holmes 1.6 +#+SETUPFILE: ../../aurellem/org/setup.org 1.7 +#+INCLUDE: ../../aurellem/org/level-0.org 1.8 + 1.9 + 1.10 +#Bugs in the Quantum-Mechanical Momentum Operator 1.11 + 1.12 + 1.13 +I studied quantum mechanics the same way I study most subjects\mdash{} 1.14 +by collecting (and squashing) bugs in my understanding. One of these 1.15 +bugs persisted throughout two semesters of 1.16 +quantum mechanics coursework until I finally found 1.17 +the paper 1.18 +[[http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0103153][/Self-adjoint extensions of operators and the teaching of quantum 1.19 +mechanics/]], which helped me stamp out the bug entirely. I decided to 1.20 +write an article about the problem and its solution for a number of reasons: 1.21 + 1.22 +- Although the paper was not unreasonably dense, it was written for 1.23 + teachers. I wanted to write an article for students. 1.24 +- I wanted to popularize the problem and its solution because other 1.25 + explanations are currently too hard to find. (Even Shankar's 1.26 + excellent [[http://books.google.com/books/about/Principles_of_quantum_mechanics.html?id=2zypV5EbKuIC][textbook]] doesn't mention it.) 1.27 +- I wanted to check that the bug was indeed entirely 1.28 + eradicated. Attempting an explanation is my way of making 1.29 + sure. 1.30 + 1.31 +* COMMENT 1.32 + I recommend the 1.33 +paper not only for students who are learning 1.34 +quantum mechanics, but especially for teachers interested in debugging 1.35 +them. 1.36 + 1.37 +* COMMENT 1.38 +On my first exam in quantum mechanics, my professor asked us to 1.39 +describe how certain measurements would affect a particle in a 1.40 +box. Many of these measurement questions required routine application 1.41 +of skills we had recently learned\mdash{}first, you recall (or 1.42 +calculate) the eigenstates of the quantity 1.43 +to be measured; second, you write the given state as a linear 1.44 +sum of these eigenstates\mdash{} the coefficients on each term give 1.45 +the probability amplitude. 1.46 + 1.47 +* The infinite square well potential 1.48 + 1.49 +There is a particle in a one-dimensional potential well that is 1.50 +infinite everywhere except for a well of length \(a\). This means that the 1.51 +particle exists in a potential[fn:coords][fn:infinity] 1.52 + 1.53 + 1.54 +\(V(x)=\begin{cases}0,&\text{for }\;0< x< a;\\\infty,&\text{for 1.55 +}\;x<0\text{ or }x>a.\end{cases}\) 1.56 + 1.57 +The Schr\ouml{}dinger equation describes how the particle's state 1.58 +\(|\psi\rangle\) will change over time in this system. 1.59 + 1.60 +\(\begin{eqnarray} 1.61 +i\hbar \frac{\partial}{\partial t}|\psi\rangle &=& 1.62 +H |\psi\rangle \equiv\frac{P^2}{2m}|\psi\rangle+V|\psi\rangle \end{eqnarray}\) 1.63 + 1.64 +This is a differential equation whose solutions are the physically 1.65 +allowed states for the particle in this system. Physically allowed 1.66 +states are those that change in physically allowed ways. Like any 1.67 +differential equation, the Schr\ouml{}dinger equation can be 1.68 +accompanied by /boundary conditions/\mdash{}conditions that 1.69 +further restrict which states qualify as physically allowed. 1.70 + 1.71 +Whenever possible, physicists impose these boundary conditions: 1.72 +- The state should be a /continuous function of/ \(x\). This means 1.73 + that if a particle is very likely to be /at/ a particular location, 1.74 + it is also very likely to be /near/ that location. 1.75 +- 1.76 + 1.77 +#; physically allowed states are those that change in physically 1.78 +#allowed ways. 1.79 + 1.80 + 1.81 +** Boundary conditions 1.82 +Because the potential is infinite everywhere except within the well, 1.83 +a realistic particle must be confined to exist only within the 1.84 +well\mdash{}its wavefunction must be zero everywhere beyond the walls 1.85 +of the well. 1.86 + 1.87 + 1.88 +[fn:coords] I chose my coordinate system so that the well extends from 1.89 +\(0<x<a\). Others choose a coordinate system so that the well extends from 1.90 +\(-\frac{a}{2}<x<\frac{a}{2}\). Although both coordinate systems describe the same physical 1.91 +situation, they give different-looking answers. 1.92 + 1.93 +[fn:infinity] Of course, infinite potentials are not 1.94 +realistic. Instead, they are useful approximations to finite 1.95 +potentials when \ldquo{}infinity\rdquo{} and \ldquo{}the actual height 1.96 +of the well\rdquo{} are close enough for your own practical 1.97 +purposes. Having introduced a physical impossibility into the problem 1.98 +already, we don't expect to get physically realistic solutions; we 1.99 +just expect to get mathematically consistent ones. The forthcoming 1.100 +trouble is that we don't.