Eigenvalue of x^4 Potential: A Mystery Explored

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the eigenvalues of quantum mechanical potentials, specifically focusing on the quartic potential \(x^4\) and its comparison to the quadratic potential \(x^2\). Participants explore numerical results obtained from solving these potentials and question the physical implications of the observed eigenvalues, particularly why the ground state energy for the \(x^4\) potential appears lower than that of the \(x^2\) potential.

Discussion Character

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

Main Points Raised

  • One participant notes that the ground state energy for the \(x^4\) potential is numerically found to be 0.667981, which raises questions about its significance compared to the harmonic oscillator's energy of 0.5.
  • Another participant suggests that different polynomial forms, such as \(0.5x^n\) or \(8x^n\), yield varying results, indicating potential sensitivity to the form of the potential.
  • A participant emphasizes the importance of specifying the setup of the problem, including coefficients and units, to understand the results better.
  • Concerns are raised about the behavior of potentials as the exponent increases, noting that they become flatter around \(x=0\) and approach an infinite square well as the exponent approaches infinity.
  • One participant mentions discrepancies in energy levels for the harmonic oscillator as they consider higher states, suggesting that numerical methods may not capture these accurately.
  • Another participant points out that comparing energies of different potentials is complicated by their differing sizes when converted to energy units, which may affect direct comparisons.
  • There is speculation about the quartic potential representing an optimum case for ground state energy due to its balance between classically allowed and forbidden regions.
  • One participant suggests looking into the WKB approximation as a potential method for further analysis.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express various viewpoints and uncertainties regarding the eigenvalues of the potentials discussed. There is no clear consensus on the reasons behind the observed numerical results or their physical implications, indicating that multiple competing views remain.

Contextual Notes

Participants note limitations in their numerical methods, including the effects of discretization and the need for careful consideration of potential setups. The discussion highlights the complexity of comparing energies across different potential forms and the potential for missing eigenstates in numerical solutions.

dingo_d
Messages
199
Reaction score
0
So I'm working out on a potentials of the type x^2p, and I have a program that solves and gives the eigenenergies for a potential that I have (x^n in general).

I noticed that for a ground state the potential x^4 has the smallest eigenvalue : 0.667981 in units where [tex]\hbar=m=\omega=1[/tex].

I found out that there is an article that describes the physical background of this, but I haven't got the access to it :\

I've searched google and I haven't stumbled upon an explanation...

So any ideas why is the eigenvalue in the ground state of the x^4 potential lower than that of the potential x^2 (numerically)? When I set the power to something like x^20, or x^100 I see that the energies go up, as they should...

Is this just numerical quirk or some weird physics?
 
Physics news on Phys.org


So no idea?
 


This is quite funny...
Try using different polynomials, eg. 0.5*x^n or 8x^n and you will get different results.
I don't get it...
 


I noticed that for a ground state the potential x^4 has the smallest eigenvalue : 0.667981 in units where LaTeX Code: \\hbar=m=\\omega=1 .

For a harmonic oscillator, it's 0.5, right? So 0.6... is actually higher. Am I missing something?

Edit: Yes, yes I am. Sorry for the dumbness. See SpectraCat's post.
 
Last edited:


You have to be a little more specific about how you are setting up the problem. What are the coefficients for the potential, and in what units? What length scale are you using? What are the units on your kinetic energy operator (it looks like you are using atomic units, but I just want to be sure)? You are correct to suspicious about the answers you are getting ... consider the following points.

1) As the exponent increases, the potentials are actually getting flatter in the region around x=0. In fact, as the exponent approaches infinity, the potential approaches an infinite square between x=-1 and x=1, which has well-known energy levels that can be solved for analytically. The ground state of that potential will set the lower limit for the ground state energy for all of your potentials.

2) The x^2 potential also has analytical energy levels (harmonic oscillator). If hbar and omega are both 1, then you should get 0.5 (hartrees) for the ground state energy, right? However, but if that is the case, then your potential is not x^2 but rather 0.5*x^2, in the units you have chosen. If your potential is x^2 in atomic units then your force constant is 2 (hartrees per bohr radius squared) and omega should be sqrt(2).

3) If your problem is set up so that you have energy levels near the bottom of the well, the trend as the exponent is increased might not be what you expect.

4) If your numerical solver uses the Numerov-Cooley algorithm, or a similar one, then the eigenstate you find will depend on an initial guess of the energy. So, unless you are doing some sort of systematic search for eigenstates, you can easily miss one, particularly if they are closely spaced.

Hope this helps.
 


Wow that was thorough :)

the general problem was to use discretization to solve numerically the [tex]x^{2p}[/tex] potential (p is positive integer). And as you've said, for p=1 you'll get SHO, and for [tex]p\to \infty[/tex] you get infinite square well.

And using discretization method (where [tex]\hbar=m=\omega=1[/tex]) I got the result for the ground state to be 0.667981 and for the SHO it's 0.707103. For infinite square well I get (which is almost exact to the analytical solution) 1.233700.

I have noticed, that for SHO the energy levels differs from the analytical solution as I take the higher states...

It's just that it said in the article that it's of some importance to the quantum field theorists, and I cannot seem to find anything about it :\
 


I have found at least one problem in finding and comparing energies of x^(2n) potentials. It is, as Spectra was aiming at, I believe, that these different potentials all have different sizes (when converted back to units of joule). This makes it a little complicated to compare the energies directly, as you have to take some (n-dependent) factor along.
 


dingo_d said:
Wow that was thorough :)

the general problem was to use discretization to solve numerically the [tex]x^{2p}[/tex] potential (p is positive integer). And as you've said, for p=1 you'll get SHO, and for [tex]p\to \infty[/tex] you get infinite square well.

And using discretization method (where [tex]\hbar=m=\omega=1[/tex]) I got the result for the ground state to be 0.667981 and for the SHO it's 0.707103. For infinite square well I get (which is almost exact to the analytical solution) 1.233700.

I have noticed, that for SHO the energy levels differs from the analytical solution as I take the higher states...

It's just that it said in the article that it's of some importance to the quantum field theorists, and I cannot seem to find anything about it :\

Ok, it looks like you are probably doing everything correctly. I think the answer to your question is that the x^4 (quartic) potential represents some sort of optimum case between the potential having a wider classically allowed region, while also having shallow enough curvature to allow significant penetration into the classically forbidden region. For example, the reason that the SHO has a lower ground state energy than the 1D-PIB limit is that the SHO ground state has significant penetration into the classically forbidden region.
However, I can't say for sure whether there is some deeper physical meaning behind the fact that this happens for the quartic potential specifically .. there certainly might be, but nothing jumps out at me as to specifically why at the moment. Maybe a QFT expert could shed some light on this?
 


I think I got the fact why I get superb results for infinite square well solutions, and not that good approximation for 'softer' potentials.

Discretization works on a certain interval, and outside that interval the wave function is zero. Which is absolutely true for infinite square well (no tunneling into classical forbidden region), and for SHO I have some tunneling, so the interval should be very large for computer to neglect the tunneling effect.

But I'm still not quite sure as to why the x^4 potential gave smaller result...

You're right. Maybe some field theorist will come along and shed a light on it :D
 
  • #10


Maybe you should have a look at the WKB approximation for the solutions.
 
  • #11


I used variational method for this problem, I guess I could try wkb to see what'll come out...
 

Similar threads

Undergrad Doubt on Morse potential and harmonic oscillator
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Graduate The eigenvalue power method for quantum problems
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Graduate Does there exist a proof for these conjectures?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Graduate A particle locked inside an arrangement of Dirac delta potentials
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Graduate Can Bloch Waves Reveal Periodic Potentials in Quantum Mechanics?
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
Graduate Ground state energy of cube-like potential wells
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Graduate Ground state calculation with a time averaged wave function
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Harmonic potential exercise with perturbation theory
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Undergrad Clarification on a statement about spin 1/2 z component related to x and y
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
3K
Graduate Can anyone give me the details of creating a cat state in Circuit QED?
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K