We describe a study motivated by our interest to examine the incompleteness of the Ehrenfest's theorem in quantum mechanics and to resolve a doubt regarding whether or not the hermiticity of the Hamiltonian operator is sufficient to justify a simplification of the expression of the macroscopic-observable time derivative that promotes the one usually found in quantum-mechanics textbooks. The study develops by considering the simple quantum system 'particle in onedimensional box'. We propose theoretical arguments to support the incompleteness of the Ehrenfest's theorem in the formulation he gave, in agreement with similar findings already published by a few authors, and corroborate them with the numerical example of an electric charge in an electrostatic field. The contents of this study should be useful to Bachelor and Master students; the style of the discussions is tailored to stimulate, we hope, the student's ability for independent thinking.

We describe the analytical solution of the eigenvalue problem introduced in our article mentioned in the title and relative to a punctiform electric charge confined in an one-dimensional box in the presence of an electric field. We also derive and discuss the analytical expressions of the external forces acting on the punctiform charge and associated with the boundaries of the one-dimensional box in the presence of the electric field.

We address two questions regarding square-well potentials from a didactic perspective. The first question concerns whether or not the justification of the standard a priori omission of the potential's vertical segments in the analysis of the eigenvalue problem is licit. The detour we follow to find out the answer considers a trapezoidal potential, includes the solution, analytical and numerical, of the corresponding eigenvalue problem and then analyzes the behavior of that solution in the limit when the slope of the trapezoidal potential's ramps becomes vertical. The second question, obviously linked to the first one, pertains whether or not eigenfunction's and its first derivative's continuity at the potential's jump points is justified as a priori assumption to kick-off the solution process, as it is standardly accepted in textbook approaches to the potential's eigenvalue problem. We show that, by following the indicated detour, the irrelevance of the potential's vertical segments and the continuity of eigenfunctions and their first derivatives at the potential's jump points turn out to be proven results instead of initial assumptions.