Solving SE Numerically for Periodic Potential

aaaa202
Messages
1,144
Reaction score
2
Okay so I am solving the SE numerically for different potentials. Amongst those I am trying to find the low energy wave functions for a periodic potential of the form:
V=V0cos(x)
Now recall that for a numerical solution, at least the type I am doing, you somehow have to assume that the wave functions tends to zero for large lxl. This is obviously the case for any bound states, which I have been looking at so far. But this one I am not quite sure - I mean yes surely to be at infinity a particle would have to cross an infinite number of potential barriers, so it's intuitive from that perspective that the wave functions are indeed finite. On the other hand, these potential barriers are only finite so I am not quite sure. Can anybody, who have a bit more experience with the solutions to the Schrödinger equation tell me what is correct assume? :)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You are right in both respects; in the minimum of the potential curve one expects that normalizable wave functions may be present, but your potential is periodic, so one expects periodic eigen-functions (that are not normalizable) as well. I am not sure about this, without actually solving the equation, but both kinds of eigenfunctions seem possible. It may be that localized wave functions will correspond to certain range of energies, and the infinite trains will correspond to the remaining range.
 
Strictly speaking you are right that the functions in the Hilbert space should be normalizable.
However, a periodic potential only has a continuous spectrum and therefore it has no normalizable eigenfunctions in the strict sense.
Maye you find the wikipedia article on "Bloch waves" helpful.
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
Not an expert in QM. AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is quite different from the classical wave equation. The former is an equation for the dynamics of the state of a (quantum?) system, the latter is an equation for the dynamics of a (classical) degree of freedom. As a matter of fact, Schrödinger's equation is first order in time derivatives, while the classical wave equation is second order. But, AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is a wave equation; only its interpretation makes it non-classical...
According to recent podcast between Jacob Barandes and Sean Carroll, Barandes claims that putting a sensitive qubit near one of the slits of a double slit interference experiment is sufficient to break the interference pattern. Here are his words from the official transcript: Is that true? Caveats I see: The qubit is a quantum object, so if the particle was in a superposition of up and down, the qubit can be in a superposition too. Measuring the qubit in an orthogonal direction might...

Similar threads

Back
Top