I Numerical solution of Schrödinger equation

aaaa202
Messages
1,144
Reaction score
2
Suppose I want to solve the Schrödinger equation numerically for some potential V(x). The easiest way to do so, is to discretize it on a grid of finite length, and apply a finite difference scheme to approximate the second order derivative. Doing so yields an eigenvalue equation on matrix form for the wavefunctions and their corresponding energies, which may then be found by diagonalization.

The above method was the way I always solved the Schrödinger equation, when numerical work was needed. However, now I am faced with a problem, where I need to impose a boundary condition on the boundary of my interval. In the method above you implicitly assume that the wavefunctions outside the domain you are looking at, but for my current problem this will no longer work. Is there a way to adapt the finite difference method above to handle the case with a non-zero boundary condition? Worse even, my boundary condition differs for the different eigenmodes. I.e. the groundstate has one value at the boundary, the first excited another and so on. Could this also be incorporated easily?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
aaaa202 said:
Suppose I want to solve the Schrödinger equation numerically for some potential V(x). The easiest way to do so, is to discretize it on a grid of finite length, and apply a finite difference scheme to approximate the second order derivative. Doing so yields an eigenvalue equation on matrix form for the wavefunctions and their corresponding energies, which may then be found by diagonalization.

The above method was the way I always solved the Schrödinger equation, when numerical work was needed. However, now I am faced with a problem, where I need to impose a boundary condition on the boundary of my interval. In the method above you implicitly assume that the wavefunctions outside the domain you are looking at, but for my current problem this will no longer work. Is there a way to adapt the finite difference method above to handle the case with a non-zero boundary condition? Worse even, my boundary condition differs for the different eigenmodes. I.e. the groundstate has one value at the boundary, the first excited another and so on. Could this also be incorporated easily?

I would propose the shooting method, see e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_method, combined with Runge-Kutta or other method to first-order differential equation. Alternatively, you could try a basis expansion where the basis functions satisfy the boundary conditions. The fact that the different states have different boundary conditions could be a bit tricky, but probably be handled.
 
I read Hanbury Brown and Twiss's experiment is using one beam but split into two to test their correlation. It said the traditional correlation test were using two beams........ This confused me, sorry. All the correlation tests I learnt such as Stern-Gerlash are using one beam? (Sorry if I am wrong) I was also told traditional interferometers are concerning about amplitude but Hanbury Brown and Twiss were concerning about intensity? Isn't the square of amplitude is the intensity? Please...
I am not sure if this belongs in the biology section, but it appears more of a quantum physics question. Mike Wiest, Associate Professor of Neuroscience at Wellesley College in the US. In 2024 he published the results of an experiment on anaesthesia which purported to point to a role of quantum processes in consciousness; here is a popular exposition: https://neurosciencenews.com/quantum-process-consciousness-27624/ As my expertise in neuroscience doesn't reach up to an ant's ear...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
Back
Top