General method for solving SE

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter quZz
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    General Method
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on methods for solving the Schrödinger equation, particularly in the context of scattering problems with arbitrary potentials that are not singular and decrease rapidly at infinity. Participants explore both analytical and numerical approaches to the problem.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Experimental/applied

Main Points Raised

  • One participant asks about the general method for solving the Schrödinger equation with a specific form and boundary conditions related to scattering problems.
  • Another participant suggests using Green's function to rewrite the Schrödinger equation as an integral equation, noting the need for complex boundary conditions and the potential for separable solutions involving spherical harmonics.
  • A later reply expresses appreciation for the Green's function method and inquires about the feasibility of numerically solving the integral equation, questioning if there are better numerical methods available.
  • Another participant recommends using a finite-difference representation of the derivative in a lattice setup with Matlab, mentioning that this method is effective for stationary states but less so for scattering states.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants present multiple approaches to solving the Schrödinger equation, including analytical and numerical methods, but there is no consensus on the best method for scattering states specifically.

Contextual Notes

Participants discuss the complexity of boundary conditions and the limitations of numerical methods for certain types of states, such as scattering states, without resolving these issues.

Who May Find This Useful

Readers interested in quantum mechanics, particularly those focusing on the Schrödinger equation, scattering problems, and numerical methods in physics.

quZz
Messages
123
Reaction score
1
Hi!

What is the general method for solving Schroedinger equation
[tex] \nabla^2 \psi(\textbf{r}) + (p^2 - 2mU(\textbf{r}))\psi(\textbf{r}) = 0,[/tex]
with arbitrary potential [itex]U(\textbf{r})[/itex] that is not singular and decreases rapidly at infinity.
I'm interested in scattering problem, so
[tex] \psi(\textbf{r}) \sim e^{i\textbf{p}\textbf{r}} + f(p,\textbf{r}/r)\frac{e^{ipr}}{r}[/tex]
as [itex]r\to\infty[/itex].

What are the corresponding boundary/initial conditions?

Thanks in advance.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Its been awhile since I've done this or worked this out, but i'd venture to guess the general solution strategy would best be served by going down the Green's function path. So rewrite schrodingers equation as an integral equation with a Greens function (you probably know the drill).

The potential needs to satisfy rather complicated boundary conditions (say something like e^ikr + solutions to the homogenous part of the SE) eg outgoing spherical waves.

Then you guess that the homogenous solutions are seperable alla spherical harmonics (so something like a function of the radial part * spherical harmonic part) subject to the singularity conditions.

Anyway, you have to play with it a bit. Good luck.
 
Thank you!
This is indeed very helpful, I forgot about this method...

And the second question: how about numerical realization of it? Is it worth trying to solve integral equation numerically or there are better ways?
 
If you have Matlab: put the whole system on a lattice, and use the finite-difference representation of the derivative. Then your radial equation will be a matrix in position space. Use the standard numerical routines to diagonalize to get the eigenvalues (energies) and eigenfunctions (wavefunctions). This method works well for stationary states, but quite poorly for scattering states.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
6K