What Is Energy Degeneracy in a Cubical Box?

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around energy degeneracy in a three-dimensional cubical box, focusing on the quantum states associated with specific energy levels. Participants explore the implications of quantum mechanics in a confined system, particularly how energy states can correspond to multiple quantum configurations.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the lowest and second-lowest energy states, questioning the uniqueness of quantum states associated with these energies. They explore the concept of distinguishability between quantum states based on their probability densities and the implications of wave function behavior in the box.

Discussion Status

The discussion is active, with participants examining the nuances of quantum states and their degeneracies. Some have offered insights into the mathematical expressions for probability densities, while others have raised questions about the assumptions made regarding distinguishability and the implications of specific values of n².

Contextual Notes

Participants are navigating the constraints of the problem, including the requirement to identify explicit values of n² for degeneracies and the limitations imposed by the nature of quantum states in a three-dimensional potential. There is an ongoing examination of the validity of certain assumptions regarding wave functions and their distinguishability.

docnet
Messages
796
Reaction score
487
Homework Statement
please see below
Relevant Equations
please see below
For one-dimensional binding potential, a unique energy corresponds to a unique quantum state of the bound particle. In contrast, a particle of unique energy bound in a three-dimensional potential may be in one of several different quantum states. For example, suppose that the three-dimensional box has edges of equal lengths ##a=b=c##, so that it is a cube. Then the energy states are given by
$$E=\frac{h^2}{8ma^2}(n_x^2+n_y^2+n_z^2), n_x,n_y,n_z=1,2,3,4...$$

(a) what is the lowest possible value for the energy E in the cubical box? show that there is only one quantum state corresponding to this energy (that is, only one choice of the set ##n_x,n_y,n_z##).

(b) What is the second-lowest energy E? Show that this value of energy is shared by three distinct quantum states. Given the probability function ##|\psi|^2## for each of these states, could they be distinguuished from one another?

(c) let ##n^2=n_x^2+n_y^2+n_z^2## be an integer proportional to a given permitted energy. List the degeneracies for energies corresponding to ##n^2=3, 6, 9, 11, 12##. Can you find a value of ##n^2## for which the energy level is sixfold degenerate?
(a) the lowest possible value for ##E## is
$$ E=\frac{h^2}{8ma^2}(1^2+1^2+1^2)=\frac{3h^2}{8ma^2}$$
where the quantum state corresponding to this energy is ## (n_x,n_y,n_z)=(1,1,1)##.

(b)the second lowest energy ##E## is
$$ E=\frac{h^2}{8ma^2}(2^2+1^2+1^2)=\frac{3h^2}{4ma^2}$$
shared by three distinct quantum states ## (n_x,n_y,n_z)=(2,1,1)## or ##(1,2,1)## or ##(1,1,2)##.

They cannot be distinguished from one another because $$|\psi|^2=sin^2(\frac{n_x\pi x}{a})sin^2(\frac{n_y\pi x}{b})sin^2(\frac{n_z\pi x}{c})$$ where ##a=b=c##, and the three quantum states have identical probabilities.

(c)
##n^2=3\Rightarrow (1,1,1)##

##n^2=6\Rightarrow (2,1,1), (1,2,1), (1,1,2)##

##n^2=9\Rightarrow (2,2,1), (2,1,2), (1,2,2)##

##n^2=11\Rightarrow (3,1,1), (1,3,1), (1,1,3)##

##n^2=12\Rightarrow (2,2,2)##

When ##n_x\neq n_y\neq n_z##, the number of degeneracies are given by the number of permutations of ##n_x, n_y, n_z##.
$$3!=3\times2\times1=6$$
 
Physics news on Phys.org
docnet said:
They cannot be distinguished from one another because $$|\psi|^2=sin^2(\frac{n_x\pi x}{a})sin^2(\frac{n_y\pi x}{b})sin^2(\frac{n_z\pi x}{c})$$ where ##a=b=c##, and the three quantum states have identical probabilities.
Is that really true everywhere in the box?

For the six-fold degeneracy the problem asks for an explicit n2 as answer.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: PeroK
docnet said:
They cannot be distinguished from one another because $$|\psi|^2=sin^2(\frac{n_x\pi x}{a})sin^2(\frac{n_y\pi x}{b})sin^2(\frac{n_z\pi x}{c})$$ where ##a=b=c##, and the three quantum states have identical probabilities.
This should be ##|\psi(x, y, z)|^2##.
 
Ah good catch, didn't notice that the typo made it harder to see the difference.
 
mfb said:
Is that really true everywhere in the box?

For the six-fold degeneracy the problem asks for an explicit n2 as answer.
No! I believe I made a mistake. ##\psi## is not the same everywhere in the box, and can be distinguished from one another as I work out below.##
PeroK said:
This should be ##|\psi(x, y, z)|^2##.
I realize that now. My work was careless.

Let me try this again, this time aware of my error.

(b)the second lowest energy ##E## is
$$ E=\frac{h^2}{8ma^2}(2^2+1^2+1^2)=\frac{3h^2}{4ma^2}$$
shared by three distinct quantum states ## (n_x,n_y,n_z)=(2,1,1)##, ##(1,2,1)## and ##(1,1,2)##.

The distinct quantum states can be distinguished from one another because the probability densities for the three states are given by
$$|\psi_1(x,y,z)|^2=sin^2(\frac{2\pi x}{a})sin^2(\frac{\pi y}{a})sin^2(\frac{2\pi z}{a})$$
$$|\psi_2(x,y,z)|^2=sin^2(\frac{\pi x}{a})sin^2(\frac{2\pi y}{a})sin^2(\frac{\pi z}{a})$$
$$|\psi_3(x,y,z)|^2=sin^2(\frac{\pi x}{a})sin^2(\frac{\pi y}{a})sin^2(\frac{2\pi z}{a})$$
The three product terms in ##\psi_i(x,y,z)## are independent in x,y, and z. So, quantum operators that contain partial derivatives with respect to x, y, and z can give different values on ##\psi_i(x,y,z)##. For example, we can identify ##\psi_1(x, y, z)=sin(\frac{2\pi x}{a})sin(\frac{\pi y}{a})sin(\frac{\pi z}{a})## using the three momentum operators on ##\psi_1(x, y, z)##
$$\hat{P_x}\psi(x,y,z)=-i\hbar\Big[\frac{\partial}{\partial x}sin(\frac{2\pi x}{a})sin(\frac{\pi y}{a})sin(\frac{\pi z}{a})\Big]=-i\hbar\frac{2\pi}{a}\Big[cos(\frac{2\pi x}{a})sin(\frac{\pi y}{a})sin(\frac{\pi z}{a})\Big]$$
$$\hat{P_y}\psi(x,y,z)=-i\hbar\Big[sin(\frac{2\pi x}{a})\frac{\partial}{\partial y}sin(\frac{\pi y}{a})sin(\frac{\pi z}{a})\Big]=-i\hbar\frac{\pi}{a}\Big[sin(\frac{2\pi x}{a})cos(\frac{\pi y}{a})sin(\frac{\pi z}{a})\Big]$$
$$\hat{P_z}\psi(x,y,z)=-i\hbar\Big[sin(\frac{2\pi x}{a})sin(\frac{\pi y}{a}) \frac{\partial}{\partial z}sin(\frac{\pi z}{a})\Big]=-i\hbar\frac{\pi}{a}\Big[sin(\frac{2\pi x}{a})sin(\frac{\pi y}{a}) cos(\frac{\pi z}{a})\Big]$$
We can work out the expectation values for momentum, and we will find that ##\psi_1(x,y,z)## has a two-fold larger momentum in the x direction than in y or z directions.

Likewise, the kinetic energy operators ##\hat{T_j}## operating on ##\psi_i(x,y,z)=sin(\frac{2\pi x}{a})sin(\frac{\pi y}{a})sin(\frac{\pi z}{a})## have different eigenvalues. It is worth mentioning the three quantum states correspond to a single expectation value for position because the density functions ##\rho=|\psi_i(x,y,z)|^2## are symmetrically distributed about the center of the cube. In similar terms, we find there is a single expectaion value for energy because the Hamiltonian contains partial derivatives with respect to all three components x, y, and z in a symmetric manner, and because we defined the three wavefunctions ##\psi_i(x,y,z)## to be degenerate quantum states.

edited for wording and explanations
 
Last edited:
You are far overthinking this. Consider what happens at e.g. x=a/2 in the first case and how that differs from the second and third case.
 
mfb said:
You are far overthinking this. Consider what happens at e.g. x=a/2 in the first case and how that differs from the second and third case.

I see what you mean. For ##x=\frac{a}{2}## the probability density vanishes to ##0## for all ##y## and ##z## for ##\psi_1(x,y,z)##, and that is not the case for ##\psi_2(x,y,z)## or ##\psi_3(x,y,z)##. However, I thought we were only allowed to use operators to test our hypothesis.
 
docnet said:
However, I thought we were only allowed to use operators to test our hypothesis.
I don't know what that means. The wave functions are different, with different probability densities for finding the particle, so the states are distinguishable.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: docnet and mfb
PeroK said:
I don't know what that means. The wave functions are different, with different probability densities for finding the particle, so the states are distinguishable.
oh no... I spent too long on this problem.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K