A Ballentine on Diffraction Scattering

EE18
Messages
112
Reaction score
13
In Chapter 5.4b of Ballentine, a discussion ensues about the analysis of a particle scattering off of a (Bravais lattice) periodic array. I attach pictures here of the full discussion in case anyone wants/needs to refer to it, but I am particularly baffled by the discussion on page 135. In particular, my understanding is as follows:

(1) As a general goal, we are looking for an eigenstate (i.e. solution to (5.24) -- what Ballentine often refers to as a "physical solution") which respects the boundary condition that it is incident from some source which we capture vaguely based on the ultimate ##e^{i\textbf{k} \cdot \textbf{x}}## in (5.27) which is to be discussed.

(2) We employ Bloch's Theorem which tells us that it is possible to pick an eigenbasis of the Hamiltonian (i.e. of (5.24)) in which every solution is of the form (5.26). That it is possible is important -- it does not, in particular, follow that every eigenstate obeying (5.24) is of the form (5.26).

(3) My issue is with why Ballentine says, at the bottom of 135, that (5.27) must be of the form (5.26). Why!? I'm satisfied with the paragraph above (5.27) where we argue that we need only one eigenstate of the form (5.26) to account for the first term in (5.27), but why should we in general say that that one eigenstate (for the given ##\textbf{q}=\textbf{k}_{xy}## is then sufficient to account for all the other terms in (5.27)? That doesn't seem to have been established at all, and I could imagine that there would be other ##\textbf{q}## in the eigenspace of ##H## corresponding to the given value of ##E## so that, from my comments in (2), we in general have to bring in other eigenstates of the form (5.26) to write (5.27)? Ballentine must be using some other information to exclude this possibility.

Screen Shot 2023-02-04 at 10.15.36 AM.png
Screen Shot 2023-02-04 at 10.15.44 AM.png
Screen Shot 2023-02-04 at 10.15.51 AM.png
Screen Shot 2023-02-04 at 10.16.14 AM.png
 
Physics news on Phys.org
EE18 said:
My issue is with why Ballentine says, at the bottom of 135, that (5.27) must be of the form (5.26). Why!? I'm satisfied with the paragraph above (5.27) where we argue that we need only one eigenstate of the form (5.26) to account for the first term in (5.27), but why should we in general say that that one eigenstate (for the given is then sufficient to account for all the other terms in (5.27)?
He's matching a general form of the full three dimensional wave-function to the form established for its restriction to the xy plane containing the lattice.
 
LittleSchwinger said:
He's matching a general form of the full three dimensional wave-function to the form established for its restriction to the xy plane containing the lattice.
But how has he established that the particular solution for this problem is an element of the Bloch basis and not just a member of that eigenspace (and so a sum of elements of the Bloch basis in that eigenspace)?
 
Because this solution must meet the boundary condition imposed by the incident wave.
 
and to be an eigenstate the energy of the system is constrained asymptotically. This restricts the eigenstates to a subset that looks like Bloch waves with a particular in-plane momentum
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In her YouTube video Bell’s Theorem Experiments on Entangled Photons, Dr. Fugate shows how polarization-entangled photons violate Bell’s inequality. In this Insight, I will use quantum information theory to explain why such entangled photon-polarization qubits violate the version of Bell’s inequality due to John Clauser, Michael Horne, Abner Shimony, and Richard Holt known as the...
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...
I asked a question related to a table levitating but I am going to try to be specific about my question after one of the forum mentors stated I should make my question more specific (although I'm still not sure why one couldn't have asked if a table levitating is possible according to physics). Specifically, I am interested in knowing how much justification we have for an extreme low probability thermal fluctuation that results in a "miraculous" event compared to, say, a dice roll. Does a...

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
10
Views
4K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
64
Views
10K
Replies
15
Views
4K
Replies
6
Views
3K
Back
Top