Ground state energy of cube-like potential wells

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion focuses on the ground state energy of potential wells with different geometries, specifically comparing cubic and spherical wells, as well as other forms defined by the equation ##x^{2n}+y^{2n}+z^{2n}=r^{2n}##. The scope includes theoretical calculations, numerical simulations using diffusion Monte Carlo methods, and exploratory reasoning regarding the characteristics of these potential wells.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant notes that a 3D cubic potential well always has a bound ground state, while a spherical well may not if it is too shallow.
  • Calculations for various potential well shapes indicate that as the exponent ##n## increases, the ground state energy converges towards that of a cubic box for ##n>4##.
  • For a potential well depth of ##V=1500##, the ground state energy for cubic and certain higher-order wells approaches the exact result for a hard-walled box.
  • Another participant suggests that the exponent ##q## in the surface equation needs to be at least ##2.5## for the ground state energy to be approximately halfway between that of a sphere and a cube.
  • There is mention of the computational challenges in simulating shallower potential wells and the potential need to extrapolate results for very low well depths.
  • Participants discuss the possibility of calculating perturbation series coefficients for various potential shapes and the approximation of wave functions.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the characteristics of spherical versus cubic potential wells, particularly regarding the conditions under which bound states exist. There is no consensus on the implications of the results for shallow potential wells or the exact nature of the ground state energy across different geometries.

Contextual Notes

Some calculations rely on finite potential values, which may affect the accuracy of the ground state energy results compared to infinite potential scenarios. The discussion includes various assumptions about the potential shapes and their mathematical representations.

hilbert2
Science Advisor
Insights Author
Messages
1,611
Reaction score
611
TL;DR
An estimate for 3d potential wells of different depths and shapes is calculated with quantum diffusion monte carlo.
In some other thread someone mentioned that a 3D cubic potential well always has a ground state that is a bound state, but a spherical well doesn't necessarily have if it's too shallow.

I calculated some results for 3d cubes, spheres and surfaces of form ##x^{2n}+y^{2n}+z^{2n}=r^{2n}##, which look like

4th order (n=2):

gif&s=3.gif


6th order (n=3):

gif&s=33.gif


10th order (n=5):

gif&s=55.gif


and are the more cube-like the larger the exponent ##2n## is. The ground state energy was obtained with an old diffusion monte carlo code from

https://github.com/m0baxter/DMC

with the potential energy ##V(x,y,z)## set to some constant value ##V## outside the well and to ##0## inside it. I'll post the graphs of the results here in case someone finds them interesting.

For well depth ##V=1500##, similar to a hard-walled box, the results for spheres, cubes and things between them were like in this image:

image1.jpg
The energy converges to much the same value with a cubic box and the ##x^n + y^n + z^n = r^n## as long as the ##n>4##. With ##n=4## there's a small but clear difference to the cube if you calculate the average of the energy values after convergence (##t>10^5##). The ground state for these was near the exact result, ##E=3.85##, of a box with that side length and hard walls (##V\rightarrow\infty##). I think the energies are a bit less than that because ##V## is only large but finite.

If the graph for the spherical well is compared to the exact result for a sphere with hard walls, then it looks like this:

image2.jpg


So there's a good agreement there as well.

The same result calculated for potential wells of same radius and a potential step of only ##V=1## looks like

image3.jpg


So there's a less clear difference between a cube and a sphere potential well when the potential well is shallow. The 28th order surface can for any computational physicist's interests be seen as exactly the same as a cube.

The QDMC calculation takes a lot more time for less deep potential wells. Actually, it doesn't seem to be convenient to try to test whether the ground state looks like a bound state for a really low well depth like ##V=10^{-3}##. This was the result I was interested in. Maybe I could calculate ground state energies for different well depths and extrapolate to zero depth to see what happens. To do that, it's probably necessary to include surfaces like ##|x|^q + |y|^q +|z|^q = r^q## with ##q## a rational number between ##2## and ##4## because for integer values only there are not enough data points. The similarity of the results in the first image makes me somehow expect that almost all properties of ##x^n + y^n + z^n = r^n## potential wells, including the existence of a bound state, are the same as for a cube when ##n>4##.

So, this was an Insight-like example of a ground state energy calculation with QDMC. In some book containing a physics lecture by E. Fermi there actually was a cube-rounded-from-corners potential well used in an atomic nucleus model, but I couldn't find any other examples of applications.

CORRECTION: The ground state energy of an infinite cube-shaped well with side length 2.0 should be ##E_0 = \frac{3\pi^2}{8} \approx 3.7##, not the 3.85 in the first picture. That's why the DMC graphs seemed to converge to a smaller value than they should. The particle mass in all simulations was ##m=1##, and the Planck constant was also ##\hbar =1## as in atomic-like units.
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
  • Like
  • Wow
Likes   Reactions: Haborix, mfb, Keith_McClary and 1 other person
Physics news on Phys.org
It seems that the exponent of the surface ##|x|^q +| y|^q + |z|^q = r^q## needs to be as low as ##q=2.5## for the ground state energy to be about halfway between that of a sphere and a cube.
image4.jpg


If someone else wants to do the simulation, the "dmc.cpp" source code file from that GitHub page needs to be edited to have this kind of "main" and "V" functions to be the same as what I did.

Code:
double V( std::array<double, 3> &x ) {
if(pow(x[0],4)+pow(x[1],4)+pow(x[2],2.5)<1.0) return 0.0;
else return 1500.0;
}

int main() {

   const int d = 3;                  //Spatial dimension
   const int s = 1;                  //Number of particles
   const int dp = d*s;               //Effective dimension.
   int N0 = 1000;                     //Intial numberof points.
   const int maxN = 10000;            //Maximum number of points.
   int nb = 200;                     //Number of bins for wave function histogram.
   double xmin = -10;                 //Lower bound of grid
   double xmax = 10;                  //Upper bound of grid
   double timeStep = 0.0001;           //Time step.
   double relaxTime = 20;            //Time to wait for convergence.
   double alpha = 5.0;               //Update parameter for energy.

   std::array<double, 3> x0 = { 0.0, 0.0, 0.0 };  //Initial position of particles.
   std::function<double (std::array<double, dp> &)> potential = V; //The Potential.

   runSimulation<maxN, dp>( s, N0, nb, xmin, xmax, timeStep, relaxTime, alpha, x0, potential, true, true );

   return 0;
}
 
You've been playing with a couple of fun problems lately. Is this quarantine induced? :wink:
 
Haborix said:
You've been playing with a couple of fun problems lately. Is this quarantine induced? :wink:

Possibly. Also, to keep these tools in memory just in case I can some day afford to get a PhD degree in the future.

Some other things I could calculate with this are the first and second order coefficients for a perturbation series ##E_0 = C_0 + C_1 \lambda + C_2 \lambda^2 + \dots## with ##\lambda## as in

##|x|^{2+\lambda} + |y|^{2+\lambda} + |z|^{2+\lambda} = r^{2+\lambda}##,

and the same for a perturbation that stretches the potential well in one direction to make it ellipsoid or parallelepiped-like.

I also have to look for a way to quantify how closely a function ##\psi (x,y,z)## can be approximated with a product ##\psi (x,y,z) = X(x)Y(y)Z(z)## or ##\psi (r,\theta ,\phi ) = R(r)\Theta (\theta) \Phi (\phi)##. The most obvious one would be to compare the energy expectation value of the exact ground state wavefunction and its Hartree approximation.

Edit: Defining the parameter ##q## as in ##|x|^{2+q} + |y|^{2+q} + |z|^{2+q} = r^{2+q}##, meaning that ##q=0## corresponds to a spherical potential well, the results for ground state energy as a function of ##q## for potential step of ##1500## and well diameter ##2.0## are as in the images:

GSE-values1.jpg


GSE-values2.jpg


The parameters in the second order curve fit ##E_0 \approx C_0 + C_1 q + C_2 q^2## were

##C_0 = 4.791##
##C_1 = -1.974##
##C_2 = 1.662##

The energy at the limit of small or large ##q## are a bit (3% to 5%) lower than the values for ##V\rightarrow\infty##, probably because the ##V## had a finite value ##1500## in the calculations.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K