11
$\begingroup$

In Moore's introductory physics textbook Six Ideas that Shaped Physics, he describes a set of qualitative rules that first-year physics students can use to sketch energy eigenfunctions in a 1-D quantum-mechanical potential. Many of these are basically the WKB formalism in disguise; for example, he introduces a notion of "local wavelength", and justifies the change in amplitude in terms of the classical particle spending more time there. He also notes that the wavefunction must be "wave-like" in the classically allowed region, and "exponential-like" in the classically forbidden region.

However, there is one rule that he uses which seems to work for many (but not all) quantum potentials:

The $n$th excited state $\psi_n(x)$ of a particle in a 1-D potential has $n$ extrema.

This is true for the particle in a box (either infinite or finite), the simple harmonic oscillator, the bouncing neutron potential, and presumably a large number of other 1-D quantum potentials. It is not true, however, for a particle in a double well of finite depth; the ground state, which has a symmetric wavefunction, has two maxima (one in each potential well) and one minimum (at the midpoint between the wells).

The following questions then arise:

  1. Are there conditions can we place on $V(x)$ that guarantee the above quoted statement is true? For example, is the statement true if $V(x)$ has only one minimum? Is the statement true if the classically allowed region for any energy is a connected portion of $\mathbb{R}$? (The second statement is slightly weaker than the first.)

  2. Can we generalize this statement so that it holds for any potential $V(x)$? Perhaps there is a condition on the number of maxima and minima of $V(x)$ and $\psi_n(x)$ combined?

I suspect that if a statement along these lines can be made, it will come out of the orthogonality of the wavefunctions with respect to some inner product determined by the properties of the potential $V(x)$. But I'm not well-enough versed in operator theory to come up with an easy argument about this. I would also be interested in any interesting counterexamples to this claim that people can come up with.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Nice question. I bet this has properly been characterised by mathematicians (say, in the Sturm-Liouville theory; for some reason I'm thinking of Chebyshev right now). Maybe math.SE may have something to say. BTW I found this online: "Eigenfunctions, $y_j$, posess nodes between $a$ and $b$, the number of such nodes increases with increasing $j$. The eigenfunction $y_0(x)$ has no nodes, $y_1(x)$ has one node, and so forth." See here too (ctrl+F "node"), $\endgroup$ – AccidentalFourierTransform Nov 30 '16 at 21:36
  • $\begingroup$ That theorem is about zeroes of n-th eigenestate - $\psi_n(x)$ has n zeroes. Probably you can really say something about combination of extremas of both $V(x)$ and $\psi_n(x)$ but I don't think there's proven theorem $\endgroup$ – OON Nov 30 '16 at 21:55
  • $\begingroup$ In an infinite potential well your operator is compact, which means it's spectrum will be countable. The energy then increases with $n^2$ (which means it's monotonically increasing), and since solutions are oscillatory and subject to boundary conditions that cancel the wavefunction at the walls, the only option for it is to develop a new extremum for each value of increasing $n$. If your operator is no longer compact, then you can't say anything about the spectrum, except that it is not countable, therefore follows no such rule. The finite potential well is a nice example. $\endgroup$ – QuantumBrick Nov 30 '16 at 22:10
  • $\begingroup$ @OON zeroes and nodes are essentially the same thing, because the wave function is continuous and differentiable (Rolle's theorem: "any real-valued differentiable function that attains equal values at two distinct points must have a stationary point somewhere between them") $\endgroup$ – AccidentalFourierTransform Dec 2 '16 at 14:12
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @AccidentalFourierTransform zeroes and nodes are the same thing. Zeroes and extrema are not. And zero-mode should have NO zeroes but may possess three extrema if it have little well on thetop of large bell-curve (for potential that have two wells near each other). $\endgroup$ – OON Dec 2 '16 at 14:28
8
$\begingroup$

I) We consider the 1D TISE $$ -\psi^{\prime\prime}_n(x) +V(x)\psi_n(x) ~=~ E_n\psi_n(x) .\tag{1}$$

II) From a physics$^{\dagger}$ perspective, the most important conditions are:

  1. That there exists a ground state $\psi_1(x)$.

  2. That we only consider eigenvalues $$ E_n ~<~\liminf_{x\to \pm\infty}~ V(x). \tag{2}$$ Eq. (2) implies the boundary conditions $$ \lim _{x\to \pm\infty} \psi_n(x)~=~0 .\tag{3}$$ We can then consider $x=\pm\infty$ as 2 boundary nodes. (If the $x$-space is a compact interval $[a,b]$, the notation $\pm\infty$ should be replace with the endpoints $a$ & $b$, in an hopefully obvious manner.)

Remark: Using complex conjugation on TISE (1), we can without loss of generality assume that $\psi_n$ is real and normalized, cf. e.g. this Phys.SE post. We will assume that from now on.

Remark: It follows from a Wronskian argument applied to two eigenfunctions, that the eigenvalues $E_n$ are non-degenerate.

Remark: A double (or higher) node $x_0$ cannot occur, because it must obey $\psi_n(x_0)=0=\psi^{\prime}_n(x_0)$. The uniqueness of a 2nd order ODE then implies that $\psi_n\equiv 0$. Contradiction.

III) Define

$$ \nu(n)~:=~|\{\text{interior nodes of }\psi_n\}|,\tag{4}$$

$$ M_+(n)~:=~|\{\text{local max points $x_0$ for $|\psi_n|$ with }\psi_n(x_0)>0\}|,\tag{5}$$

$$ M_-(n)~:=~|\{\text{local max points $x_0$ for $|\psi_n|$ with }\psi_n(x_0)<0\}|,\tag{6}$$

$$ m_+(n)~:=~|\{\text{local min points $x_0$ for $|\psi_n|$ with }\psi_n(x_0)>0\}|,\tag{7}$$

$$ m_-(n)~:=~|\{\text{local min points $x_0$ for $|\psi_n|$ with }\psi_n(x_0)<0\}|,\tag{8}$$

$$ M(n)~:=~|\{\text{local max points for }|\psi_n|\}|~=~M_+(n)+M_-(n), \tag{9}$$

$$ m(n)~:=~|\{\text{local min points $x_0$ for $|\psi_n|$ with }\psi_n(x_0)\neq 0\}|~=~m_+(n)+m_-(n), \tag{10}$$

$$\Delta M_{\pm}(n)~:=~M_{\pm}(n)-m_{\pm}(n)~\geq~0.\tag{11} $$

Observation. Local max (min) points for $|\psi_n|\neq 0$ can only occur in classical allowed (forbidden) intervals, i.e. oscillatory (exponential) intervals, respectively.

Note that the roles of $\pm$ flip if we change the overall sign of the real wave function $\psi_n$.

Proposition. $$ \Delta M_+(n)+\Delta M_-(n)~=~\nu(n)+1, \qquad |\Delta M_+(n)-\Delta M_-(n)|~=~2~{\rm frac}\left(\frac{\nu(n)+1}{2}\right).\tag{12} $$

Sketched Proof: Use Morse-like considerations. $\Box$

IV) Finally let us focus on the nodes.

Lemma. If $E_n<E_m$, then for every pair of 2 consecutive nodes for $\psi_n$, the eigenfunction $\psi_m$ has at least one node strictly in-between.

Sketched Proof of Lemma: Use a Wronskian argument applied to $\psi_n$ & $\psi_m$, cf. Refs. 1-2. $\Box$

Theorem. With the above assumptions from Section II, the $n$'th eigenfunction $\psi_n$ has $$\nu(n)~=~n\!-\!1.\tag{13}$$

Sketched proof of Theorem:

  1. $\nu(n) \geq n\!-\!1$: Use Lemma. $\Box$

  2. $\nu(n) \leq n\!-\!1$: Truncate eigenfunction $\psi_n$ such that it is only supported between 2 consecutive nodes. If there are too many nodes there will be too many independent eigenfunctions in a min-max variational argument, leading to a contradiction, cf. Ref. 1. $\Box$

Remark: Ref. 2 features an intuitive heuristic argument for the Theorem: Imagine that $V(x)=V_{t=1}(x)$ belongs to a continuous 1-parameter family of potential $V_{t}(x)$, $t\in[0,1]$, such that $V_{t=0}(x)$ satisfies property (4). Take e.g. $V_{t=0}(x)$ to be the harmonic oscillator potential or the infinite well potential. Now, if an extra node develops at some $(t_0,x_0)$, it must be a double/higher node. Contradiction.

References:

  1. R. Hilbert & D. Courant, Methods of Math. Phys, Vol. 1; Section VI.

  2. M. Moriconi, Am. J. Phys. 75 (2007) 284, arXiv:quant-ph/0702260.

--

$^{\dagger}$ For a more rigorous mathematical treatment, consider asking on MO.SE or Math.SE.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Nice answer. Note that if the potential $V(x)$ only has one minimum (as is the case for all of the cases I cited above for which the proposition holds, but not for the double finite square well), then there will never be a classically forbidden region for any $E$ that doesn't include either $+\infty$ or $-\infty$. I think that this then implies that there will be no local minima of $|\psi_n(x)|$, and therefore that $\Delta M_+ + \Delta M_- = M = \nu + 1$. $\endgroup$ – Michael Seifert Dec 3 '16 at 15:17
  • $\begingroup$ $\uparrow$ Yes. $\endgroup$ – Qmechanic Dec 3 '16 at 15:34

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.