Tunneling with Gaussian Wave Packet

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on achieving accurate 1D numerical results for tunneling probabilities using a Gaussian wave packet without relying on analytic approximations like WKB. The user is currently simulating a Gaussian wave packet approaching a barrier and computing tunneling probabilities by integrating the probability before and after the barrier. Concerns were raised about the dependency of results on the initial position of the wave packet, with suggestions to increase the central momentum to minimize spreading effects. The conversation also highlights the potential for obtaining exact transmission probabilities for square barriers using plane waves, referencing Sakurai's "Modern Quantum Mechanics."

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Gaussian wave packets in quantum mechanics
  • Familiarity with numerical methods for solving quantum tunneling problems
  • Knowledge of tunneling probabilities and their calculations
  • Basic concepts of quantum mechanics, particularly regarding barriers and wave functions
NEXT STEPS
  • Explore numerical methods for calculating tunneling probabilities without analytic approximations
  • Investigate the effects of varying central momentum on wave packet behavior
  • Study Sakurai's "Modern Quantum Mechanics" for exact transmission probabilities in square barriers
  • Research techniques for minimizing wave packet spreading during simulations
USEFUL FOR

Quantum physicists, computational physicists, and researchers working on quantum tunneling phenomena who seek to enhance their understanding of numerical simulations and wave packet dynamics.

Tertius
Messages
57
Reaction score
10
TL;DR
I have a simulation built of an initial wave packet approaching a barrier and tunneling.
The goal is to have accurate 1D numerical results for tunneling probabilities through an arbitrary barrier without relying on analytic approximations such as WKB. If there is a more ideal approach to this, I am happy to change tactics. Time independent, for example, but I am not sure how to set up the boundaries at the edges so it doesn't become a bound system.

Most of the resources i've found detail way to solve for bound systems (oscillators, potential wells, etc), but I haven't found one that produces tunneling probabilities from a numerical method.

My initial simulation is a Gaussian wavepacket approaching a barrier, but I am finding that the numerical results are of course dependent on the initial location of the wavepacket. This is expected because the time evolution spreads out the wavepacket as it approaches the barrier.

I am attaching a snapshot of the simulation (both real and imaginary parts of ##\psi## are shown). I am computing the tunneling probability as the integrated probability after the barrier divided by the integrated probability before the barrier (computed at each time step, and taking the maximum).

I am concerned this approach is dependent on initial position. Is there a better general approach?

previously consulted resources:
https://arxiv.org/html/2403.13857v1#S3 https://www.reed.edu/physics/faculty/wheeler/documents/Quantum Mechanics/Miscellaneous Essays/Gaussian Wavepackets.pdf

Screenshot 2024-06-12 at 07.36.41.png
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: gentzen
Physics news on Phys.org
Tertius said:
My initial simulation is a Gaussian wavepacket approaching a barrier, but I am finding that the numerical results are of course dependent on the initial location of the wavepacket. This is expected because the time evolution spreads out the wavepacket as it approaches the barrier.
You should try a higher central momentum for the wave packet then. You want to be in a regime where the spreading of the wave packet is negligible (compared to ##d\braket{x}/dt##) over the entire simulation.

Tertius said:
I am attaching a snapshot of the simulation (both real and imaginary parts of ##\psi## are shown). I am computing the tunneling probability as the integrated probability after the barrier divided by the integrated probability before the barrier (computed at each time step, and taking the maximum).
In the conditions I mentioned above, you will get a splitting of the wave packet into separated reflected and transmitted parts, from which you can calculate the transmission probability, which will be independent of time once the interaction with the barrier is over (assuming that the wave packet never reaches the end of the grid). The maximum might not correspond to the long-time (converged) result.

Also, for square barriers you can get exact transmission probabilities for a plane wave (see, e.g., Sakurai's Modern Quantum Mechanics). The numerical result can of course differ as you are using a wave packet, but it is possible to make the wave packet narrow enough in momentum such that the two results are practically indistinguishable.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Tertius
That makes sense. And then, from what i've found in literature, it is common to have the spreading parameter ##\sigma = \frac{h}{2 \lambda}##. That should, in combination with the momentum being high enough, give physically real and consistent results, I would hope.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K