Skip to main content

Physics V course sequence · Interactive lesson

Boundary conditions and the discrete spectrum

Anyone can solve −(ħ²/2m)ψ″ + Vψ = Eψ. The harder skill is knowing why almost none of its solutions are states. Here is where discreteness actually enters, how to find the levels by shooting in from both ends and hunting a sign change, and which energies the argument cannot reach.

UPV-04.07 · Lesson 7 of 9 in this unit. Position is not a completion score.
Starting model: Boundary conditions and the discrete spectrumψ is shot in from the left, where only the decaying ray survives: an exponential for x < −a with κa = 2.06, an oscillation inside with ka = 1.68, then A e^(−κ(x−a)) + B e^(+κ(x−a)) beyond x = +a. Where the trace runs flat along the top or bottom edge it has left the frame, not levelled off.integrated in from the left decaying tailtail amplitude B = −1.020B = 0 at an eigenvalueforbiddenallowedforbiddenx = −ax = +a
Start with a picture. Change the model in the lab below.
1

Build the model

The ODE allows every energy. Normalisability allows a countable few.

The key idea

Quantisation is the statement that only isolated energies admit a solution of Ĥψ = Eψ that is square-integrable and satisfies the matching conditions defining the domain of Ĥ; every other energy still solves the differential equation, just not inside the Hilbert space.

Example. For an electron in an infinite well of width L = 0.50 nm, sin(kL) = 0 selects kₙ = nπ/L, so E₁ = 1.50 eV and E₂ = 6.02 eV. At E = 3.00 eV the ODE still has a two-dimensional solution space; nothing in it vanishes at both walls.

The complete physical model and assumptions

A second-order linear ODE has a two-dimensional solution space at every energy, real or complex, so −(ħ²/2m)ψ″ + Vψ = Eψ rejects no value of E. What rejects it is membership of the Hilbert space. Fix E below the asymptotic value V∞, and far from the well the equation reads ψ″ = κ²ψ with one decaying and one growing branch at each end; demanding decay as x → −∞ picks out a single ray ψL, and demanding it as x → +∞ picks out ψR. Two lines through the origin of a two-dimensional space generically meet only at the origin, and their failure to coincide is measured by the Wronskian W(E) = ψL ψR′ − ψL′ ψR, which is independent of x and analytic in E below V∞. Eigenvalues are the zeros of W, and the zeros of an analytic function that is not identically zero are isolated — that, and not any picture of waves fitting between walls, is why the bound spectrum is discrete. The criterion is energetic rather than geometric: the argument needs both asymptotic regions classically forbidden, so it runs only for min V < E < V∞. Above V∞ both branches oscillate, nothing is rejected, every E survives, and the spectrum is continuous. The cost is that eigenvalues are now roots of a transcendental function; for a square well, only in the hard-wall limit, where the decay length 1/κ collapses to zero and the condition degenerates to sin(kL) = 0, do they come out in closed form.

1The differential equation rejects no energy

Write the eigenvalue problem in the position basis: ψ″(x) = [2m(V(x) − E)/ħ²] ψ(x). It is a second-order linear ODE, so for every complex E its solution set is a two-dimensional vector space — fix ψ(x₀) and ψ′(x₀) at one point and everything else follows. Nothing in that statement singles out any E. A free particle makes it sharp: for every E > 0 both e(ikx) and e(−ikx) solve it, and for every E < 0 both e(κx) and e(−κx) do. Quantisation is therefore never a property of the differential equation. It is a property of the operator, and an operator is a formula plus a domain: Ĥ acts on the square-integrable functions obeying the stated matching conditions, and E is an eigenvalue only if the two-dimensional solution space meets that domain in something other than the zero vector.

2Decay at each end picks one ray out of two

Let V(x) → V∞ at both ends and fix E < V∞. Far out the equation becomes ψ″ = κ²ψ with κ = √(2m(V∞ − E))/ħ, whose branches are e(+κx) and e(−κx). Square-integrability as x → −∞ admits only e(+κx), fixing ψ up to scale: call that one-dimensional set of solutions ψL. The same demand as x → +∞ leaves ψR. Now count. The solution space is two-dimensional and we have chosen two lines through its origin; generically they are different lines, and the state fails to exist not because the ODE broke down but because the solution decaying on the left grows on the right. Their coincidence is measured by the Wronskian W(E) = ψL ψR′ − ψL′ ψR, constant in x because the equation carries no first-derivative term, and analytic in E below V∞ — not entire, because κ carries a square-root branch point at E = V∞. E is an eigenvalue exactly when W(E) = 0, and a function analytic there and not identically zero has isolated zeros, which can accumulate only at the edge V∞. That is the proof of discreteness, and it never mentions a wall.

3Shooting: the divergent tail is the root finder

Turn the Wronskian into an algorithm. Pick a matching point xₘ inside the well, integrate ψL rightwards from deep in the left forbidden region starting at ψ = e(κx), integrate ψR leftwards from the right, and form the mismatch Δ(E) = ψL′/ψL − ψR′/ψR at xₘ — a log-derivative difference, which is −W(E) divided by ψL ψR and so shares its zeros. Δ changes sign as E crosses a level, and also through a pole wherever ψL or ψR vanishes at xₘ, so reject any bracket across which |Δ| blows up; on a genuine bracket brentq converges in a dozen evaluations. Two practical points. Integrate out of each forbidden region toward the well, never into one: integrating outward from the well lets the growing branch swamp the decaying one, and a start accurate to 10⁻¹² is dominated by round-off after twenty decay lengths. And count nodes as you sweep E upward — the nth bound state carries n − 1 interior nodes, so the node count names the root you have found and reveals any you skipped.

4The window is energetic, not geometric

That argument needed both asymptotic regions classically forbidden, and this sets the window exactly. For E > V∞ the asymptotic solutions are e(±ikx): both bounded, neither square-integrable, neither rejected, so every such E survives. The spectrum there is continuous and its kets are δ-normalised rather than members of L². For E < min V the sign flips everywhere: ψ″/ψ = 2m(V − E)/ħ² > 0 at every x, so ψ is convex away from the axis throughout and can never bend back to zero at both ends — the ground state must sit above the bottom of the well. Only min V < E < V∞ admits discrete eigenvalues. Two consequences the wall picture hides. A finite well with no walls at all, open to infinity on both sides, still holds bound states, because E < V∞ = 0 makes the outside forbidden. And an infinite well has V∞ = ∞, which is why every one of its states is discrete and it has no scattering sector at all.

5Counting the levels before solving for them

For a symmetric well of half-width a and depth V₀ the matching conditions split by parity: k tan(ka) = κ for even states, −k cot(ka) = κ for odd ones, both subject to k² + κ² = 2mV₀/ħ². Write z = ka and z₀ = (a/ħ)√(2mV₀); every root then satisfies z tan z = √(z₀² − z²) or −z cot z = √(z₀² − z²) with 0 < z < z₀. The tangent branches start at z = 0, π, 2π, … and the cotangent branches at π/2, 3π/2, …, so a new root appears each time z₀ clears a multiple of π/2 and the count is N = ⌈2z₀/π⌉. Depth and width enter only through z₀, so quadrupling V₀ while halving a leaves N unchanged. Because z₀ > 0 always clears the first branch, a one-dimensional well binds at least one state however shallow — a statement that fails in three dimensions, where a shallow well binds nothing. An electron in a well of half-width 0.50 nm and depth 5.0 eV has z₀ = 5.73, so N = ⌈3.65⌉ = 4.

6The infinite well is the degenerate case

Now send V₀ → ∞ at fixed width. The decay constant κ = √(2m(V∞ − E))/ħ diverges, the penetration depth 1/κ collapses to zero, and k tan(ka) = κ degenerates: tan(ka) → ∞, so ka → (2n − 1)π/2, and combining both parities the condition on the full width L = 2a is simply sin(kL) = 0. It is the same matching condition with the exterior amplitude driven to zero, and it is the only square well whose roots are available in closed form: kₙ = nπ/L and Eₙ = n²π²ħ²/(2mL²) = n²h²/(8mL²). For an electron with L = 1.00 nm, E₁ = 0.376 eV and the levels sit at 1, 4, 9, 16 times it. The closed form is bought with a lie about the wall: continuity of ψ′ is abandoned there because no finite potential is present to enforce it, and a deep but finite well leaks over a decay length 1/κ of 0.195 nm for an electron 1.0 eV below the top.

2

Key equations

Read the units, assumptions and limits before substituting.

Local curvature

ψ″/ψ = 2m(V(x) − E)/ħ²

Fixes the shape but not the spectrum: ψ bends toward the axis where E > V, away from it where E < V, at every E.

m in kg, V and E in J, ħ = 1.055 × 10⁻³⁴ J s; the ratio has units m⁻²

Asymptotic decay constant

κ = √(2m(V∞ − E))/ħ, ψ → C e(−κ|x|)

An electron 1.00 eV below V∞ has κ = 5.12 × 10⁹ m⁻¹, a decay length of 0.195 nm.

V∞ = lim V(x) as |x| → ∞; κ in m⁻¹, real only while E < V∞

Wronskian mismatch

W(E) = ψL ψR′ − ψL′ ψR

E is an eigenvalue exactly when W(E) = 0, and an analytic function that is not identically zero has isolated zeros — the discreteness in one line.

ψL decays as x → −∞, ψR as x → +∞; W is independent of x and analytic in E for E < V∞

Infinite well

sin(kₙL) = 0 → Eₙ = n²π²ħ²/(2mL²)

The one square well whose matching condition solves in closed form, because the exterior amplitude is exactly zero.

n = 1, 2, 3, …; L in m, E in J. Electron with L = 1.00 nm: E₁ = 0.376 eV

Finite well, matched at x = a

k tan(ka) = κ (even), −k cot(ka) = κ (odd)

Replaces sin(kL) = 0 by transcendental roots: the levels are no longer spaced as n².

k = √(2m(E + V₀))/ħ and κ = √(−2mE)/ħ in m⁻¹, with k² + κ² = 2mV₀/ħ²

Bound-state count

N = ⌈2z₀/π⌉, z₀ = (a/ħ)√(2mV₀)

Counts the levels before any root is found, and shows N ≥ 1 always — a 1D well never fails to bind.

z₀ dimensionless; a in m, V₀ in J. Electron, a = 0.50 nm, V₀ = 5.0 eV: z₀ = 5.73
3

Interactive lab

Predict first. Explore the model. Compare the result.

Explore the model

0.600
0.02 to 0.93; steps of 0.005.
2.66
1 to 3.5; steps of 0.02.

Try this. Leave z₀ at 2.66 and drag the trial energy: at −E/V₀ = 0.820, and again at 0.330, the right-hand tail folds back onto the axis and B passes through zero. Those two energies are the entire discrete spectrum; at every other trial energy B ≠ 0, the tail grows without bound and the state is not in the Hilbert space.

Live results

WAVENUMBER z = ka
1.682
DECAY w = κa
2.060
MISMATCH B
-1.020
BOUND STATES
2

Results follow this lesson’s model and assumptions. Displayed values are rounded.

Interactive Physics V modelψ is shot in from the left, where only the decaying ray survives: an exponential for x < −a with κa = 2.06, an oscillation inside with ka = 1.68, then A e^(−κ(x−a)) + B e^(+κ(x−a)) beyond x = +a. Where the trace runs flat along the top or bottom edge it has left the frame, not levelled off.integrated in from the left decaying tailtail amplitude B = −1.020B = 0 at an eigenvalueforbiddenallowedforbiddenx = −ax = +a
ψ is shot in from the left, where only the decaying ray survives: an exponential for x < −a with κa = 2.06, an oscillation inside with ka = 1.68, then A e(−κ(x−a)) + B e(+κ(x−a)) beyond x = +a. Where the trace runs flat along the top or bottom edge it has left the frame, not levelled off.

Predict → change one variable → check

Plan a change before running it. Every other input stays at the saved baseline.

Saved baseline. Trial energy −E/V₀: 0.600; Depth parameter z₀ = a√(2mV₀)/ħ: 2.66

Baseline 0.600; choose 0.02 to 0.93, in steps of 0.005.
4. Compared with the saved baseline, this result will…

This experiment is kept only while this page is open. It does not change saved course progress.

4

Catch the common trap

The standing-wave story — the walls trap the particle, so only a whole number of half-wavelengths fits — gets the infinite well right and the mechanism wrong. Walls are not what quantises. The infinite well is the single case where the exterior decay length 1/κ is zero, so the matching condition degenerates to ψ(0) = ψ(L) = 0 and looks like a ruler measurement. Make the walls finite and ψ leaks out: the condition becomes k tan(ka) = κ, whose roots are not evenly spaced in k and obey no n² law. Remove the walls entirely, leaving a bare well open on both sides, and the discrete levels survive, because the test is E < V∞, not the presence of a barrier. The mirror-image error is to think the equation has no solution between the levels. It has a two-dimensional space of them at every E — none of which decays at both ends.

5

Practice & worked examples

3 authored examples. Make an attempt, then reveal the reasoning one step at a time.

EasyExample 1

An electron is confined to an infinite square well of width L = 0.50 nm: V = 0 for 0 < x < L and V = ∞ outside. Show where the quantisation condition comes from, and evaluate E₁ and E₂.

Sketch your answer or reasoning, then compare it with the authored solution. Your writing is not automatically graded or saved.

0 of 4 steps revealed.

MediumExample 2

An electron sits in a finite well of half-width a = 0.30 nm and depth V₀ = 3.0 eV, with V → 0 far away. How many bound states does it hold? Then say what kind of solution, if any, exists at E = +1.0 eV and at E = −4.0 eV.

Sketch your answer or reasoning, then compare it with the authored solution. Your writing is not automatically graded or saved.

0 of 4 steps revealed.

HardExample 3

For that same well — a = 0.30 nm, V₀ = 3.0 eV, z₀ = 2.662 — the even-parity matching condition at x = a is k tan(ka) = κ. Write it in the dimensionless variable z = ka, bracket the root, and get the ground-state energy.

Sketch your answer or reasoning, then compare it with the authored solution. Your writing is not automatically graded or saved.

0 of 5 steps revealed.

6

Quick check

Select an answer and explain it before checking.

An electron moves in one dimension with V = −5.0 eV for |x| < 0.50 nm and V = 0 for |x| > 0.50 nm. Which description of the spectrum of Ĥ is correct?
7

Review & continue

Quantisation is the statement that only isolated energies admit a solution of Ĥψ = Eψ that is square-integrable and satisfies the matching conditions defining the domain of Ĥ; every other energy still solves the differential equation, just not inside the Hilbert space.

  • Explain the relationship without looking at the equation.
  • Check a sign, a unit and a model assumption in your working.
  • Return to the lab or worked example if a step is still unclear.

Extra challenging questions

Connect several ideas, explore supplied data, and compare your reasoning with a worked solution.