Talk:Ring wave guide

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Physics (Rated Redirect-class)
WikiProject iconThis redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Redirect page Redirect  This redirect does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

I think you will find that for a "particle in a ring" that the energies are actually

E = (n^2 h^2)/(2 m L^2) L is the length of the ring (ie. 2 pi r)

wavefunctions sin (n*theta) and cos (n*theta) work nice. n is the quantum number and theta the angular displacement round the ring (radians).

apart from the lowest energy level (where only a cos function is allowed - psi squared would be zero for sin) each level is doubly degenerate corresponding to wavefunctions sin and cosine. (or if you want to make it difficult the linear combinations of these... e^-ix and e^+ix). So the first level can hold one particle and all the rest two. The case of electrons in aromatic structures is different as electrons form pairs and so each level will hold an electron pair. Both eenergies and electron densities agree very well with more complex treatments of bonding in these molecules in the ground state. However the wheels fall off to a certain extent for excited states because of symmetry considerations (the ground state is totallly symmetric so there is no problem).

The article badly needs rewriting so that it gives a context and is readable by non-experts. I'm sure it contains a good deal of useful information, but it needs to be explained in a way that the average reader has an outside chance of learning something from it. Tannin 19:33 Apr 4, 2003 (UTC)

I agree. And I also think the inline tex needs to be changed to html. See Particle in a box which I just texififed, but left the inline stuff as html. Seems to work quite well I think, not perfect, but I think it's the best solution at the present time. --dave