A particle locked inside an arrangement of Dirac delta potentials

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter hilbert2
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Bound state
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the potential of trapping a particle, such as an electron, within a polyhedral surface using a configuration of repulsive Dirac delta potentials placed at the vertices. Participants explore whether this arrangement can create a bound state for the particle or if the probability density would inevitably leak out, referencing a related study on neutrons in quantum dots.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant proposes that a polyhedron with repulsive Dirac delta potentials at each vertex could potentially trap a particle, questioning if the density would leak out even with a dense arrangement.
  • Another participant states that a single delta function has one bound state, but only if it has a negative multiplier, implying that a positive delta function does not support bound states.
  • A different participant argues that a system with a positive delta function will not have bound states, as a free particle would eventually tunnel out, with the tunneling time depending on the distance and mass of the particle.
  • One participant reflects on the implications of having multiple delta potentials, suggesting that an infinite number of shells might change the situation, and references a 1D Kronig-Penney lattice to illustrate the concept of localization in a different context.
  • Another participant notes that a particle-in-sphere model with a finite potential step does not yield a bound state unless the potential is sufficiently large compared to the volume of the sphere.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the existence of bound states with positive delta potentials, with some asserting that they do not support bound states while others explore the implications of multiple potentials. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the conditions under which a particle can be trapped.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference various models and configurations, including the implications of potential depth and spatial arrangements, without reaching a consensus on the conditions necessary for trapping a particle.

hilbert2
Science Advisor
Insights Author
Messages
1,600
Reaction score
607
TL;DR
Would a dense enough set of point interaction potentials around a particle keep it confined in a limited space?
Suppose I have a 3D polyhedron with a large number of faces, and put a repulsing Dirac delta potential, ##c\delta (\mathbf{x} - \mathbf{x}_i )## with ##c>0## at each vertex point ##\mathbf{x}_i## of the polyhedron. Could this kind of an arrangement of delta potentials keep a particle such as an electron trapped inside that polyhedral surface as a bound state, or would probability density leak out even with a really densely spaced set of Dirac deltas?

Where I got this idea is this recent MIT study about a possibility to keep neutron locked inside a quantum dot, despite it interacting only with the (highly localized) nuclei and not the electrons.

https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsnano.3c12929

A quantum dot is often modelled as a "particle in 2D or 3D box", so I would guess some kind of arrangement of point interaction potentials is how the neutron quantum dot would be described with a theoretical model, but I can't access the full text of that publication yet.

The problem I posed could be investigated with a numerical calculation by approximating the delta functions with sharp gaussian spikes, but that would be less time consuming with an equivalent 2D version.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
A delta function already has one bound state.
 
Vanadium 50 said:
A delta function already has one bound state.
Yes, but only if it has a negative multiplier in front of it.
 
Are you saying that if you have a system with a potential of zero everywhere except a number of regions where it is greater than zero, does it have any bound states? It does not.

If you imagine a free particle, with a positive delta function at r = R, and a particle originally in the interior, it will eventually tunnel out. If you want to discuss how long this takes, that depends on the details of R and m. As you would expect, as R gets large (especially with respect to 1/m) the time gets long.

But this gets us into the question of "how almost is almost".
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: hilbert2
Vanadium 50 said:
Are you saying that if
If you imagine a free particle, with a positive delta function at r = R, and a particle originally in the interior, it will eventually tunnel out. If you want to discuss how long this takes, that depends on the details of R and m. As you would expect, as R gets large (especially with respect to 1/m) the time gets long.
Actually now that makes sense to me, even if a whole spherical surface acts as a delta potential, the particle will escape. Maybe it's a different situation if there's an infinite number of shells at ##r=R##, ##r=2R##, ##r=3R## and so on. Or a 3D lattice with point interactions at each lattice site and an empty vacant space somewhere for the particle to stay in.

Edit: In fact, if you look at Fig. 4 of this article, in a 1D imperfect Kronig-Penney lattice with a larger distance between one of the pairs of neighboring potential energy barriers, a particle seems to have a ground state where it's quite localized inside the largest interval available for it. An equivalent 3D version would probably not necessarily have a bound state, because a particle-in-sphere model with finite potential step (##V(r)=0## when ##r<R## and ##V(r)=V_0## when ##r\geq R##) doesn't have one either if ##V_0## isn't large enough compared to how small the volume of the sphere is.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K