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.
 
We often see discussions about what QM and QFT mean, but hardly anything on just how fundamental they are to much of physics. To rectify that, see the following; https://www.cambridge.org/engage/api-gateway/coe/assets/orp/resource/item/66a6a6005101a2ffa86cdd48/original/a-derivation-of-maxwell-s-equations-from-first-principles.pdf 'Somewhat magically, if one then applies local gauge invariance to the Dirac Lagrangian, a field appears, and from this field it is possible to derive Maxwell’s...
I read Hanbury Brown and Twiss's experiment is using one beam but split into two to test their correlation. It said the traditional correlation test were using two beams........ This confused me, sorry. All the correlation tests I learnt such as Stern-Gerlash are using one beam? (Sorry if I am wrong) I was also told traditional interferometers are concerning about amplitude but Hanbury Brown and Twiss were concerning about intensity? Isn't the square of amplitude is the intensity? Please...
I am not sure if this belongs in the biology section, but it appears more of a quantum physics question. Mike Wiest, Associate Professor of Neuroscience at Wellesley College in the US. In 2024 he published the results of an experiment on anaesthesia which purported to point to a role of quantum processes in consciousness; here is a popular exposition: https://neurosciencenews.com/quantum-process-consciousness-27624/ As my expertise in neuroscience doesn't reach up to an ant's ear...
Back
Top