Talk:Potential well

Redundant

This sentence in the lead just seems to supply a redundant statement and doesn't explain anything:

Energy captured in a potential well is unable to convert to another type of energy (kinetic energy in the case of a gravitational potential well) because it is captured in the local minimum of a potential well.

In short: The energy is captured in a potential well ... because it is captured ... in a potential well. Am I missing something?—RJH (talk) 21:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i am still trying to figure out what this means... --Hagnat (talk) 00:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I actually think this sentence is at least very imprecise. Energy (which we should probably read as particles) can escape the potential well as easily as it entered it -- by converting kinetic energy to potential energy. Moreover, the following sentence claims that

a body may not proceed to the global minimum of potential energy, as it would naturally tend to due to entropy

This is just wrong. Entropy has got nothing to do with potential-energy minima -- on the contrary, energy minima are poor in entropy and disfavoured at non-zero temperature. Arek' Fu (talk) 16:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Explaining the math

The variables used in this article are not defined, it is practically impossible for anyone with limited experience in quantum mechanics to follow the mathematical conclusions drawn. I am well aware that the referenced pages clarify the variables, but I don't see the point in including equations in this article if the variables are unclear. Either give a brief explanation of the variables, or leave it to the referenced articles to explain the math. Apyrase (talk) 23:55, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A better graphic perhaps

May I suggest a picture that graphically demonstrates the difference between a potential well and a final equilibrium. For example an f(x) = x^2 (-∞ ≤ x ≤ 0) and f(x) = 0 (0 ≤ x ≤ ∞), but with a brief upward dip in the x^2 portion. The upward dip would symbolise a potential well, since it is a solution but is not stable (if you had water there, for example a reservoir). Of course it doesn't have to be exactly modelled as I explained above; I merely wrote that to demonstrate what I am trying to say (I am a poor communicator it seems lol). Lachy123 (talk) 10:59, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

terrible article

This article is poorly written (lol grammar), poorly referenced, and poorly outlined. for all of the unintuitive and unexpected results claimed here, the reference section is exceedingly short (and the references all appear to be computational physics articles, and articles posted in small lesser known journals to boot). This field is incredibly rich. pretty much every claim made in this article can/should be referenced with multiple 5+ author papers in Journal of Applied Physics, Journal of Materials, Macromolecules, JACS, etc. instead we have 3 or 4 papers with no more than 2 authors. the author of the article claims that pressure induces lattice distortions that affect the band gap energies. This is nonsense, and any casual look into basic undergraduate textbooks on materials science and inorganic chemistry routinely discuss that it is the GRAIN BOUNDARY (which is a type of defect found in bulk materials, but which equally applies to quantum architectures) defect, lack of long range order, disruption of crystal symmetry, and introduction of non regular (anisotropic) electrostatic potential that results in anisotropic band gaps that also differ from bulk single crystal material. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.6.76.31 (talk) 06:35, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Solid-state?

I'm not an expert, but it looks to me like this article is very focused on solid-state applications and presumably electromagnetic potential wells. I was expecting to see much more about gravitational wells, in this article, for example.

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Potential well/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

I don't even understand the sentence "potential energy may escape"... shouldn't this need some explanation? "Where's" the energy, and where would it go? Didn't the author mean "the particle/system may escape"?

Last edited at 05:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 03:18, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Source for ideas on expanded content.

This page has a nice discussion of confinement in the context of solid state: https://web1.eng.famu.fsu.edu/~dommelen/quantum/style_a/cboxc.html Johnjbarton (talk) 14:10, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]