Double asymmetric quantum well

GalileoGalilei
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Hi,

We know that for an infinite well of length a, eigenfunctions of the hamiltonian are :

\psi_n(x)=\sqrt{\frac{2}{a}}sin(\frac{\pi n x}{a}) related to the eigenvalues E_n=n^2\frac{\hbar ^2 \pi^2}{2ma^2}

Now, I would like to consider two infinite quantum wells of length a et b (not necessarily equal) , like http://photonicssociety.org/newsletters/jun97/art/quantum3.gif .

The eigenfunctions of the hamiltonian are clearly of the kind \psi_n^{(a_{well})}(x) + \psi_p^{(b_{well})}(x) (n and p are not necessarily equal). But then, how could I find the (n,p) such that these are eigenfunctions. And then, what would be the eigenvalues ?

I thank you in advance for your help.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
GalileoGalilei said:
Hi,

We know that for an infinite well of length a, eigenfunctions of the hamiltonian are :

\psi_n(x)=\sqrt{\frac{2}{a}}sin(\frac{\pi n x}{a}) related to the eigenvalues E_n=n^2\frac{\hbar ^2 \pi^2}{2ma^2}

Now, I would like to consider two infinite quantum wells of length a et b (not necessarily equal) , like http://photonicssociety.org/newsletters/jun97/art/quantum3.gif .

The eigenfunctions of the hamiltonian are clearly \psi_n^{(a_{well})}(x) + \psi_p^{(b_{well})}(x) (n and p are not necessarily equal). But then, how could I find the eigenvalues ?

I thank you in advance for your help.

The example shown are not infinitely deep.

In finite double wells, you will see some intereting things.

For symmetric double wells, you will see pairs of states:

Psi_1+ = phi_1(a) + phi_1(b)
Psi_1- = phi_1(a) - phi_1(b)

The energies of these states are close to the energies of the phi_1(a/b) states. The states are said to be "split by tunneling." You will see pairs of these all theway up to the top. As the barrier between the wells gets lower, the tunneling splitting increases.

For asymmetric double wells, like your example, you will see states that look to be slightly shifted versions of the "basis states." The lowest state in your example, looks like n=1 for the wide well., while the next two look like linear combinations of n=1 in the narrrow well and n=2 in the wide well. The mixing coefficients are not equal, as is the case in the tunneling split levels of the symmetric case. E2 is probably closer to the unperturbed n=2 level of the wide well, and E3 is probably closest in energy to the unperturbed n=1 level of the narrow well.

You will need to calculate these wavefunctions numerically, just as you would for the states in the finite well. [i.e. match wavefunctions and first derivatives at key points]. There is an old paper by Cooley that discusses an efficient way to calculate the eigenfunctiond and eigen energies of one-dimensional potentials. [So-called Cooley-Numerov method.] See e.g. http://www.myoops.org/cocw/mit/NR/rdonlyres/Chemistry/5-73Introductory-Quantum-Mechanics-IFall2002/2139DA2B-09EC-4A27-A89D-0FF4666D5B13/0/notes09.pdf for a discussion of the Cooley-Numerov method. This presentation also gives the reference to the original paper by Cooley.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thanks for your answer ! Now I understand it.
 
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