jostpuur
- 2,112
- 19
I'm now interested in a Schrödinger's equation
[tex] \Big(-\frac{\hbar^2}{2m}\partial_x^2 + V(x)\Big)\psi(x) = E\psi(x)[/tex]
where [itex]V[/itex] does not contain infinities, and satisfies [itex]V(x+R)=V(x)[/itex] with some [itex]R[/itex]. I have almost already understood the Bloch's theorem! But I still have some little problems left. I shall first describe what I already know, and then what's the problem.
If a wave function satisfies a relation [itex]\psi(x+R)=A\psi(x)[/itex] with some [itex]A[/itex], when it follows that [itex]\psi(x)=e^{Cx}u(x)[/itex] with some [itex]C[/itex] and [itex]u(x)[/itex], so that [itex]u(x+R)=u(x)[/itex]. This can be proven by setting
[tex] u(x) = e^{-\frac{\log(A)}{R}x} \psi(x)[/tex]
and checking that this [itex]u(x)[/itex] is periodic.
By basic theory of DEs, there exists two linearly independent solutions [itex]\psi_1,\psi_2[/itex] to the Schrödinger's equation, and all other solutions can be written as a linear combination of these. (This is done with fixed energy [itex]E[/itex].) Now the real task is to show, that [itex]\psi_1,\psi_2[/itex] can be chosen to be of form [itex]e^{C_1x}u_1(x)[/itex] and [itex]e^{C_2x}u_2(x)[/itex].
Suppose that at least other one of [itex]\psi_1,\psi_2[/itex] is not of this form, and denote it simply with [itex]\psi[/itex]. Now [itex]\psi(x)[/itex] and [itex]\psi(x+R)[/itex] are linearly independent solutions to the Schrödinger's equation, so there exists constants [itex]A,B[/itex] so that
[tex] \psi(x+2R) = A\psi(x+R) + B\psi(x).[/tex]
Consider then the following linear combinations.
[tex] \left(\begin{array}{c}<br /> \phi_1(x) \\ \phi_2(x) \\<br /> \end{array}\right)<br /> = \left(\begin{array}{cc}<br /> D_{11} & D_{12} \\<br /> D_{21} & D_{22} \\<br /> \end{array}\right)<br /> \left(\begin{array}{c}<br /> \psi(x) \\ \psi(x+R) \\<br /> \end{array}\right)[/tex]
Direct calculations give
[tex] \left(\begin{array}{c}<br /> \phi_1(x + R) \\ \phi_2(x + R) \\<br /> \end{array}\right)<br /> = \left(\begin{array}{cc}<br /> D_{11} & D_{12} \\<br /> D_{21} & D_{22} \\<br /> \end{array}\right)<br /> \left(\begin{array}{cc}<br /> 0 & 1 \\<br /> B & A \\<br /> \end{array}\right)<br /> \left(\begin{array}{c}<br /> \psi(x) \\ \psi(x+R) \\<br /> \end{array}\right)[/tex]
and
[tex] \left|\begin{array}{cc}<br /> -\lambda & 1 \\<br /> B & A - \lambda \\<br /> \end{array}\right| = 0<br /> \quad\quad\implies\quad\quad<br /> \lambda = \frac{A}{2}\pm \sqrt{B + \frac{A^2}{4}}[/tex]
This means, that if [itex]B + \frac{A^2}{4}\neq 0[/itex], then we can choose [itex]\boldsymbol{D}[/itex] so that
[tex] \boldsymbol{D} \left(\begin{array}{cc}<br /> 0 & 1 \\<br /> B & A \\<br /> \end{array}\right)<br /> = \left(\begin{array}{cc}<br /> \lambda_1 & 0 \\<br /> 0 & \lambda_2 \\<br /> \end{array}\right) \boldsymbol{D}[/tex]
and then we obtain two linearly independent solutions [itex]\phi_1,\phi_2[/itex] which satisfy [itex]\phi_k(x+R)=\lambda_k\phi_k(x)[/itex], [itex]k=1,2[/itex].
Only thing that still bothers me, is that I see no reason why [itex]B + \frac{A^2}{4} = 0[/itex] could not happen. The matrix
[tex] \left(\begin{array}{cc}<br /> 0 & 1 \\<br /> -\frac{A^2}{4} & A \\<br /> \end{array}\right)[/tex]
is not diagonalizable. It could be, that for some reason [itex]B[/itex] will never be like this, but I cannot know this for sure. If [itex]B[/itex] can be like this, how does one prove the Bloch's theorem then?
[tex] \Big(-\frac{\hbar^2}{2m}\partial_x^2 + V(x)\Big)\psi(x) = E\psi(x)[/tex]
where [itex]V[/itex] does not contain infinities, and satisfies [itex]V(x+R)=V(x)[/itex] with some [itex]R[/itex]. I have almost already understood the Bloch's theorem! But I still have some little problems left. I shall first describe what I already know, and then what's the problem.
If a wave function satisfies a relation [itex]\psi(x+R)=A\psi(x)[/itex] with some [itex]A[/itex], when it follows that [itex]\psi(x)=e^{Cx}u(x)[/itex] with some [itex]C[/itex] and [itex]u(x)[/itex], so that [itex]u(x+R)=u(x)[/itex]. This can be proven by setting
[tex] u(x) = e^{-\frac{\log(A)}{R}x} \psi(x)[/tex]
and checking that this [itex]u(x)[/itex] is periodic.
By basic theory of DEs, there exists two linearly independent solutions [itex]\psi_1,\psi_2[/itex] to the Schrödinger's equation, and all other solutions can be written as a linear combination of these. (This is done with fixed energy [itex]E[/itex].) Now the real task is to show, that [itex]\psi_1,\psi_2[/itex] can be chosen to be of form [itex]e^{C_1x}u_1(x)[/itex] and [itex]e^{C_2x}u_2(x)[/itex].
Suppose that at least other one of [itex]\psi_1,\psi_2[/itex] is not of this form, and denote it simply with [itex]\psi[/itex]. Now [itex]\psi(x)[/itex] and [itex]\psi(x+R)[/itex] are linearly independent solutions to the Schrödinger's equation, so there exists constants [itex]A,B[/itex] so that
[tex] \psi(x+2R) = A\psi(x+R) + B\psi(x).[/tex]
Consider then the following linear combinations.
[tex] \left(\begin{array}{c}<br /> \phi_1(x) \\ \phi_2(x) \\<br /> \end{array}\right)<br /> = \left(\begin{array}{cc}<br /> D_{11} & D_{12} \\<br /> D_{21} & D_{22} \\<br /> \end{array}\right)<br /> \left(\begin{array}{c}<br /> \psi(x) \\ \psi(x+R) \\<br /> \end{array}\right)[/tex]
Direct calculations give
[tex] \left(\begin{array}{c}<br /> \phi_1(x + R) \\ \phi_2(x + R) \\<br /> \end{array}\right)<br /> = \left(\begin{array}{cc}<br /> D_{11} & D_{12} \\<br /> D_{21} & D_{22} \\<br /> \end{array}\right)<br /> \left(\begin{array}{cc}<br /> 0 & 1 \\<br /> B & A \\<br /> \end{array}\right)<br /> \left(\begin{array}{c}<br /> \psi(x) \\ \psi(x+R) \\<br /> \end{array}\right)[/tex]
and
[tex] \left|\begin{array}{cc}<br /> -\lambda & 1 \\<br /> B & A - \lambda \\<br /> \end{array}\right| = 0<br /> \quad\quad\implies\quad\quad<br /> \lambda = \frac{A}{2}\pm \sqrt{B + \frac{A^2}{4}}[/tex]
This means, that if [itex]B + \frac{A^2}{4}\neq 0[/itex], then we can choose [itex]\boldsymbol{D}[/itex] so that
[tex] \boldsymbol{D} \left(\begin{array}{cc}<br /> 0 & 1 \\<br /> B & A \\<br /> \end{array}\right)<br /> = \left(\begin{array}{cc}<br /> \lambda_1 & 0 \\<br /> 0 & \lambda_2 \\<br /> \end{array}\right) \boldsymbol{D}[/tex]
and then we obtain two linearly independent solutions [itex]\phi_1,\phi_2[/itex] which satisfy [itex]\phi_k(x+R)=\lambda_k\phi_k(x)[/itex], [itex]k=1,2[/itex].
Only thing that still bothers me, is that I see no reason why [itex]B + \frac{A^2}{4} = 0[/itex] could not happen. The matrix
[tex] \left(\begin{array}{cc}<br /> 0 & 1 \\<br /> -\frac{A^2}{4} & A \\<br /> \end{array}\right)[/tex]
is not diagonalizable. It could be, that for some reason [itex]B[/itex] will never be like this, but I cannot know this for sure. If [itex]B[/itex] can be like this, how does one prove the Bloch's theorem then?