Transition probability density between two transmitted states

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the interpretation of transition probabilities and wave functions in the context of a step potential problem with spin-orbit coupling (SOC). Participants explore the implications of scalar products of wave functions and the physical significance of different components of the wave function in relation to their origins from potential differences and spin interactions.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the physical interpretation of the condition ##<1|2> = -<2|1>##, suggesting it indicates a purely imaginary scalar product without specific physical meaning.
  • Another participant introduces the concept of SOC and presents wave functions for regions with and without the potential step, questioning whether different components of the wave function can be considered distinct quantum states.
  • There is a discussion about the nature of the wave functions and their dependence on the potential and spin interactions, with one participant asserting that the wave functions must account for spin polarization and the effects of SOC.
  • One participant expresses confusion about the setup and terminology used, specifically regarding the interpretation of SOC and the physical states represented by the wave functions.
  • Another participant seeks clarification on whether the components of the wave function can be treated as different physical states based on their origins from the potential difference and SOC.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the interpretation of the wave functions and the implications of the scalar products. There is no consensus on the physical meaning of the negative sign in the scalar product or the classification of the wave function components as distinct states.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the importance of properly stating the problem and the assumptions involved, particularly regarding the setup of the potential step and the role of spin in the wave functions. Some details about the specific problem setup remain unclear, leading to varying interpretations.

amjad-sh
Messages
240
Reaction score
13
suppose we are working on a step potential problem, and two transmitted wave functions,corresponding to one particle, are obtained. Let's name them ##|1>## and ##|2>##. How can we interpret physically the case where ##<1|2>##=##-<2|1>##? or in position representation,##\psi_1^*(x)\psi_2(x)=-\psi_2^*(x)\psi_1(x)##?
I know this means that the probability of transition from state 1 to state 2 is the same as from state 2 to state 1, but what is the role of the negative sign?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It's simply telling you that the scalar product is purely imaginary. There's no specific physical meaning of that.

It's important to note that the position representation of the scalar product doesn't provide a new function but a complex number! It's given by inserting an identity operator (a great deal of QT is understood quite well when you know which decomposition of the identity opreator to use at the right place ;-))).
$$\langle 1|2 \rangle=\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} \mathrm{d}^3 x \langle 1|\vec{x} \rangle \langle \vec{x}|2 \rangle = \int_{\mathbb{R}^3} \mathrm{d}^3 x \psi_1^*(x) \psi_2(x).$$
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: amjad-sh
vanhees71 said:
It's simply telling you that the scalar product is purely imaginary. There's no specific physical meaning of that.

It's important to note that the position representation of the scalar product doesn't provide a new function but a complex number! It's given by inserting an identity operator (a great deal of QT is understood quite well when you know which decomposition of the identity opreator to use at the right place ;-))).
$$\langle 1|2 \rangle=\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} \mathrm{d}^3 x \langle 1|\vec{x} \rangle \langle \vec{x}|2 \rangle = \int_{\mathbb{R}^3} \mathrm{d}^3 x \psi_1^*(x) \psi_2(x).$$
suppose we are dealing with a step potential problem, where there is SOC present at the interface.
the wave function for z>0 is represented by:
##\phi(z>0)=(e^{ikz}+(t_0+t_x)e^{-ikz})\chi_{+}##
##\phi^{\dagger}(z>0)=\chi_{+}^{\dagger}(e^{-ikz}+(t_0^{*}+t_x^{*})e^{ikz})##
where ##\chi_+^{\dagger}=\begin{pmatrix} \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} & \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \end{pmatrix}##
##t_x## is reflection coefficient that arises from the spin orbit coupling.
##t_0## is the transmission coefficient that arise from the difference of potential between region(z<0) and the region (z>0).
Can we consider ##t_0\chi_+e^{-ikz}## and ##t_x\chi_{+}e^{-ikz}## as two different quantum states, where ##t_0## and ##t_x## are general complex numbers?
If we let ##|1 \rangle=t_0\chi_+e^{-ikz}## and ##|2 \rangle=t_x\chi_{+}e^{-ikz}##, would ##\chi_+^{\dagger}t_0^*t_x\chi_+## be defined as the transition amplitude from ##|2\rangle## to##|1\rangle##?
 
I don't understand which setup you have in mind. What's SOC?

Also the states are strange. Usually you assume that there's an incoming wave starting far from the step potential at ##z \rightarrow -\infty##. This implies for the energy modes you have to make the ansatz
$$\phi_<(z)=A \exp(\mathrm{i} k z) + B \exp(-\mathrm{i} k z),\\
\phi_>(z)=C \exp(\mathrm{i} k z),$$
where ##\phi_<## is for ##z<0## and ##\phi_>## for ##z>0## (the potential step is assumed to be at ##z=0##).

If you have something with spin, the ##A##, ##B##, ##C## are spinor valued. For the details, I'd need the specific problem properly stated!
 
the wave functions must be like this :
##\phi_{+}(z>0)=(t_0+t_x\sigma_x+t_y\sigma_y)e^{ikz}\chi_+##
##\phi^{\dagger}_+(z>0)=\chi_+^{\dagger}(t_0^*+t_x^*\sigma_x+t_y^*\sigma_y)e^{-ikz}##
SOC is the abbreviation of spin orbit coupling.
##\chi_+## is the eigenvector of ##\sigma_x##
the Hamiltonian of the system is ##\hat{H}=\dfrac{p^{2}}{2m} -\dfrac{\partial_z^2}{2m} +V(z) +V'(z)(\vec{z} \times \vec{p})\cdot \vec{\sigma}##
where ##V'(z)(\vec{z} \times \vec{p})\cdot \vec{\sigma}## is the spin orbit coupling term, and ##p^{2}/2m -\dfrac{\partial_z^2}{2m}## is the kinetic energy term.
##t_x=ap_y## and ##t_y=bp_x## where a and b are constants.
The wave functions is incident with spin polarized in x-direction and it is in the spin up state.
Particle moving in the x-direction will spin-flip to the spin-down state,when transmitted to z>0, as ##\sigma_y\chi_+=-i\chi_-##, which is the spin down state, and -i is just a phase factor.
particle moving in the y-direction will remain polarized in the x direction and in the spin up state, when transmitted to region z>0, as ##\sigma_x\chi_+=\chi_+##.
I'm just interested in ##(t_0+t_x)e^{ikz}\chi_+##, and my question is that can we consider ##t_0e^{ikz}\chi_+## and ##t_xe^{ikz}\chi_+## as different physical states, since the first stems from the potential difference between region (z<0) and region (z>0) and the second stems from the spin orbit coupling term in the Hamiltonian, or they are physically the same?
and how can we interpret ##\chi_+^{\dagger}t_0^*t_x\chi_+##
 
Last edited:
It's not an insult. I simply really didn't understand the setup you want to describe. Now I have a better idea, but still don't understand the question. Maybe somebody else can help.
 
vanhees71 said:
It's not an insult. I simply really didn't understand the setup you want to describe. Now I have a better idea, but still don't understand the question. Maybe somebody else can help.
ok, sorry for the misunderstanding.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
5K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K