Talk:Step potential

Untitled
The quality of the figures could be improved. Bamse 04:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Copy-edit or cleanup?
I scanned this article for copy-edit errors and detected none. Perhaps it would be more fitting to mark this article for Cleanup instead? That might draw someone with more time and energy for such a requested fix as the photograph. I have extremely limited time and thus am confined to spelling/grammar fixes. Arkeides 01:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Shifted from copyedit to cleanup, although I'm not knowledgeable enough to know if the article is sufficiently illustrated. If someone else happens to think it is, then I don't see a reason for keeping the article tagged.

--Arkeides 19:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Errors
There are errors in the "Analysis of the obtained expressions" section. Fixed them and the equations for $$K_0$$ and $$K_1$$

209.234.66.97 06:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Alex from Iowa State
 * Ok...so k0 and k1 are correct, but the analysis section is way off for E < V0. Classical and quantum agree for E < V0 for the step function. This is not the potential barrier of finite length - it's V0 for ALL x>=0. Changed it to correct this.Meowist 08:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The statement in the Analysis section, that the wave function is decaying exponentially over a certain distance sounds odd, since the wave function is decaying exponentially all the way from x=0 to - infinity. I would just leave out "the distance part" to avoid confusion.

The letters T and R are used in two different ways, which causes confusion. I recommend using T and R with the squared expression T= 4k1k2/(k1 +k2)^2 since this is the standard use in QM books and t and r for the roots of T and R. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FutureNeil (talk • contribs) 21:58, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes T and R should be for the squared equations. It'll be corrected. Not sure if there's any point in r and t though, this article uses T and R. F = q(E+v×B) ⇄ ∑ici 22:29, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Rename
Should probably be renamed something like "Solution of Schrödinger equation for a step potentional" but that is kind of long and still not quite specific enough. Any better ideas for a name change? RJFJR (talk) 14:00, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * What's wrong with a simpler title like "Step potential"? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Step_potential already redirects to this article. Martinsifrar (talk) 20:07, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * This should be moved back under the title Step potential. According to Article titles, the ideal article title precisely identifies the subject; it is short, natural, distinguishable and recognizable; and resembles titles for similar articles. Step potential identifies the shape of the potential clearly with a natural and common name. It does not place potential into quantum context, but in this sense it is similar to related articles Potential well, Delta function potential and Rectangular potential barrier . Jähmefyysikko (talk) 07:35, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

What happens at E = V0?
What happens at E = V0? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Younghun park (talk • contribs) 08:44, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Misleading statement about classical particle behaviour?
In the transmission and reflection section it says "A classical particle with energy E larger than the barrier height V0 does not feel the barrier at all". I don't think this is entirely accurate since a classical particle entering this region would necessarily lose kinetic energy and would therefore be affected and said to "feel" the barrier, although it would never be reflected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.181.109.228 (talk) 03:21, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

$$E < V_0$$ needs to be considered
Anybody willing to tackle it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.111.114.136 (talk) 04:33, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I will at some point.-- F = q(E + v × B) 13:55, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Reform
Main changes: -- F = q(E + v × B) 13:55, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Make symbols more intuitive,
 * "mirror transformation"? should be parity transformation
 * replaced figure with a clearer (and much less brown - of all colours...) image,
 * Re-section slightly, still more to be done, right now no time.

Wrong equations
The equations under the boundary conditions seem wrong to me. Where does the square root of k come from and why is there a k in the condition that the wave functions be equal at 0. Anyways, I'm gonna fix it.--88.196.181.17 (talk) 15:00, 2 July 2014 (UTC)