Bloch's theorem and diagonalization of translation operator

jostpuur
Messages
2,112
Reaction score
19
I'm now interested in a Schrödinger's equation

<br /> \Big(-\frac{\hbar^2}{2m}\partial_x^2 + V(x)\Big)\psi(x) = E\psi(x)<br />

where V does not contain infinities, and satisfies V(x+R)=V(x) with some R. 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 \psi(x+R)=A\psi(x) with some A, when it follows that \psi(x)=e^{Cx}u(x) with some C and u(x), so that u(x+R)=u(x). This can be proven by setting

<br /> u(x) = e^{-\frac{\log(A)}{R}x} \psi(x)<br />

and checking that this u(x) is periodic.

By basic theory of DEs, there exists two linearly independent solutions \psi_1,\psi_2 to the Schrödinger's equation, and all other solutions can be written as a linear combination of these. (This is done with fixed energy E.) Now the real task is to show, that \psi_1,\psi_2 can be chosen to be of form e^{C_1x}u_1(x) and e^{C_2x}u_2(x).

Suppose that at least other one of \psi_1,\psi_2 is not of this form, and denote it simply with \psi. Now \psi(x) and \psi(x+R) are linearly independent solutions to the Schrödinger's equation, so there exists constants A,B so that

<br /> \psi(x+2R) = A\psi(x+R) + B\psi(x).<br />

Consider then the following linear combinations.

<br /> \left(\begin{array}{c}<br /> \phi_1(x) \\ \phi_2(x) \\<br /> \end{array}\right)<br /> = \left(\begin{array}{cc}<br /> D_{11} &amp; D_{12} \\<br /> D_{21} &amp; D_{22} \\<br /> \end{array}\right)<br /> \left(\begin{array}{c}<br /> \psi(x) \\ \psi(x+R) \\<br /> \end{array}\right)<br />

Direct calculations give

<br /> \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} &amp; D_{12} \\<br /> D_{21} &amp; D_{22} \\<br /> \end{array}\right)<br /> \left(\begin{array}{cc}<br /> 0 &amp; 1 \\<br /> B &amp; A \\<br /> \end{array}\right)<br /> \left(\begin{array}{c}<br /> \psi(x) \\ \psi(x+R) \\<br /> \end{array}\right)<br />

and

<br /> \left|\begin{array}{cc}<br /> -\lambda &amp; 1 \\<br /> B &amp; 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}}<br />

This means, that if B + \frac{A^2}{4}\neq 0, then we can choose \boldsymbol{D} so that

<br /> \boldsymbol{D} \left(\begin{array}{cc}<br /> 0 &amp; 1 \\<br /> B &amp; A \\<br /> \end{array}\right)<br /> = \left(\begin{array}{cc}<br /> \lambda_1 &amp; 0 \\<br /> 0 &amp; \lambda_2 \\<br /> \end{array}\right) \boldsymbol{D}<br />

and then we obtain two linearly independent solutions \phi_1,\phi_2 which satisfy \phi_k(x+R)=\lambda_k\phi_k(x), k=1,2.

Only thing that still bothers me, is that I see no reason why B + \frac{A^2}{4} = 0 could not happen. The matrix

<br /> \left(\begin{array}{cc}<br /> 0 &amp; 1 \\<br /> -\frac{A^2}{4} &amp; A \\<br /> \end{array}\right)<br />

is not diagonalizable. It could be, that for some reason B will never be like this, but I cannot know this for sure. If B can be like this, how does one prove the Bloch's theorem then?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
jostpuur said:
By basic theory of DEs, there exists two linearly independent solutions \psi_1,\psi_2 to the Schrödinger's equation
This is wrong, it depends on the potential. The Schrödinger equation is not a normal DE and there are for most values of E no solution at all to a specific potential which is the whole deal with quantum mechanics and often there is just one solution for a specific E.

Edit: Wrong topic, was answering on another topic...
 
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
If we release an electron around a positively charged sphere, the initial state of electron is a linear combination of Hydrogen-like states. According to quantum mechanics, evolution of time would not change this initial state because the potential is time independent. However, classically we expect the electron to collide with the sphere. So, it seems that the quantum and classics predict different behaviours!
Back
Top