Chapter 2
Simple Model Systems: Solving the Schrödinger Equation
2.1Introduction
Chapter 1 set out the postulates. This chapter applies them to the smallest set of problems that can be solved exactly, in one dimension, and it is worth being explicit about why these particular problems and no others.
Each one is a permanent tool rather than an exercise:
the free particle gives the continuum states that every ionization process ends in;
the infinite well gives quantization in its simplest form and the node-counting rule used to check every later solution;
the finite well gives the transcendental matching conditions that recur whenever a potential has more than one region;
the barrier gives tunnelling, and the exponential sensitivity that makes strong-field ionization possible;
the harmonic oscillator gives the ladder-operator method, which Chapter 3 reuses for angular momentum, and describes every molecular vibration in Chapter 7.
All five of these reappear later. The three-dimensional atoms of Chapters 4 and 5 reduce, after separating the angles, to a one-dimensional radial equation of exactly the form solved here.
2.2Stationary States
The time-dependent Schrödinger equation (TDSE) of Chapter 1 is
If does not depend on time, then Eq. (2.1) admits solutions of the form
where satisfies the time-independent Schrödinger equation (TISE)
Try with time-independent. Substituting into Eq. (2.1),
Taking the inner product with and dividing by ,
a constant, since the left side depends only on and the right side not at all. Integrating gives , and substituting back gives Eq. (2.3).
The state (2.2) does change in time — its phase rotates — but the phase cancels in every probability:
and likewise for the expectation value of any time-independent operator. Nothing observable evolves. Motion requires a superposition of stationary states with different energies, whose relative phases advance at different rates — the mechanism behind wave packets (Sec. 2.3.1) and quantum beats (Chapter 11).
In one dimension, with and , Eq. (2.3) reads
This is the equation solved five times below. Two general facts about it save work every time.
Wherever is finite, and are both continuous. Where has an infinite jump, remains continuous but need not.
Rearranging Eq. (2.4), . If is finite then is finite, so is continuous, and hence is too. If is infinite the argument fails for , but must still be continuous for to be integrable.
The bound states of Eq. (2.4) in one dimension are non-degenerate, can be chosen real, and may be ordered so that the -th state () has exactly nodes.
Theorem 2.2.3 is quoted rather than proved, but it is used constantly: it is how one confirms that a numerical solution has not skipped a level, and it reappears as the rule for hydrogen in Chapter 4.
2.3The Free Particle
Take everywhere. Equation (2.4) becomes
with general solution
Taking the two terms separately, moves to the right and to the left, each with
There is no boundary condition and hence no quantization: every is allowed. This is the continuum, and it is the first appearance of the object that Chapters 9 to 11 depend on.
A plane wave is not square-integrable: diverges. Two standard repairs exist. One is to confine the particle to a large box of length and normalize to , taking at the end. The other, used throughout the research literature and adopted in Chapter 10, is to normalize to a Dirac delta,
the second being energy normalization. Which convention is in use changes factors of and densities of states in every formula, so it must always be stated.
2.3.1Wave Packets and Group Velocity
A single plane wave is spread over all space and describes nothing localized. A particle is built as a superposition:
Expanding about the central wavenumber , , the packet moves without changing shape at the group velocity
which is the classical velocity — a first instance of the correspondence principle. Keeping the next term in the expansion makes the packet spread, because different components travel at different speeds.
2.4The Infinite Square Well
Let
Since outside, must vanish there, and by Theorem 2.2.2 is continuous, so
Inside, Eq. (2.4) is Eq. (2.5) again, with general solution most conveniently written
Apply the boundary conditions in turn. At , , leaving . At ,
( gives , which is not a state; negative merely changes the sign.) Hence and, from Eq. (2.5),
Normalization fixes :
using . Therefore
These are orthonormal, , as Chapter 1's general theorem for Hermitian operators requires.
First, confinement quantizes: the discrete spectrum came entirely from the two boundary conditions, not from any postulate. Second, the ground-state energy is not zero, ; a confined particle cannot be at rest, which is the uncertainty principle in energy form. Third, has nodes inside the well, confirming Theorem 2.2.3.
Evaluate for an electron confined to nm (an atom) and for a nitrogen molecule confined to cm (a laboratory box).
Solution.
Use . For the electron, with J s and kg,
Comparable to atomic binding energies — so quantization matters at this scale, as it must.
For N, kg and m:
Compare eV at room temperature: the level spacing is smaller by eighteen orders of magnitude, so the levels are utterly unresolvable and the motion is classical. The same formula covers both cases; only differs.
2.5The Finite Square Well
Let
and seek bound states, . Define
both real and positive.
The solutions are oscillatory inside and exponential outside. Because , the Hamiltonian commutes with parity, so the eigenstates can be chosen even or odd — which halves the work.
Even solutions
Take
Matching and at (Theorem 2.2.2):
Dividing the second by the first eliminates both constants:
Odd solutions
Take inside and outside. The same division gives
Solving the conditions
Equations (2.22) and (2.23) are transcendental: they have no closed-form solution. The standard route is graphical. Introduce the dimensionless variables
and note from Eq. (2.19) that , so . The conditions become
to be solved for . Plotting both sides against and reading off the intersections gives the bound-state energies.
The finite well of Eq. (2.18) has
bound states, alternating even, odd, even, . In particular : a one-dimensional well always binds at least one state, however shallow.
The last statement is worth remembering, and it is special to one dimension — in three dimensions a shallow well may bind nothing at all.
Outside the well , which is classically forbidden, yet Eq. (2.20) gives , nonzero for all finite . The particle has a nonzero probability of being found where a classical particle could never be, over a characteristic depth . This is the same exponential tail that becomes tunnelling in the next section, and — in Chapter 4 — the reason a low- electron can reach a nucleus that a centrifugal barrier appears to exclude it from.
2.6The Potential Barrier and Tunnelling
Now invert the well. Let
and send a particle in from the left with — classically unable to pass.
Write the solution in three regions:
with and . The absence of a left-moving wave for encodes the physical setup: nothing comes back from the far side.
Matching and at and at gives four linear equations in ; eliminating , and leaves the ratio , and the transmission coefficient is
For a thick or high barrier, , we may use , giving the form that is actually used:
The dominant factor is : the transmission falls exponentially with barrier width and with the square root of the barrier height. That extreme sensitivity is what makes tunnelling both a precise tool and a violent process. It underlies the scanning tunnelling microscope, radioactive decay, and — the case relevant to this course — strong-field ionization, in which a laser field bends the atomic potential into a barrier of finite width so that the bound electron can escape without absorbing a photon.
An electron of energy eV meets a barrier of height eV and width nm. Find , and then find it again for nm.
Solution.
First . With eV J,
For nm, , so . The prefactor is , so
About one electron in forty gets through.
Doubling the width to nm gives and , so
Doubling the width cut the transmission by a factor of . That is Remark 2.6.1 in numbers, and it is why a tunnelling current measures distance to a fraction of an atomic diameter.
2.7The Harmonic Oscillator
Let
This system earns its place three times over: it is exactly solvable; any smooth potential near a stable minimum is approximately harmonic, which is why it describes every molecular vibration in Chapter 7; and its solution introduces the ladder-operator method that Chapter 3 reuses for angular momentum.
2.7.1Ladder Operators
and
For the commutator, expand using :
Both terms equal , so the bracket is and the whole expression is .
For the Hamiltonian, multiply out:
Multiplying by ,
which rearranges to Eq. (2.34).
2.7.2The Spectrum
Let be an eigenket of with . From Eq. (2.33),
so has eigenvalue and has : the operators step down and up the ladder.
The ladder must have a bottom, because
If were not a non-negative integer, repeated application of would eventually produce a state with negative eigenvalue, contradicting Eq. (2.36). The only escape is that the chain terminates on a state with , whence
with
The normalization constants follow from Eq. (2.36): gives , and gives .
The levels are equally spaced by — unique among the systems in this chapter, and the reason a vibrational spectrum shows one dominant line rather than a converging series (Chapter 8). And the ground-state energy is , not zero: the zero-point energy. A chemical bond is never still, even at absolute zero.
2.7.3Position Representation
To obtain the wave functions, write in position space. With , Def. 2.7.1 gives
which integrates to a Gaussian. Introducing the natural length scale and the dimensionless coordinate
and normalizing with ,
Applying repeatedly, as in Eq. (2.38), generates the rest. The result is
where are the Hermite polynomials, given by
the first few being
has real zeros, so has nodes — consistent with Theorem 2.2.3 once the counting is shifted for the label starting at . The parity is , since contains only even or only odd powers.
The H molecule has a vibrational wavenumber cm. Find in eV and the zero-point energy, and compare with the bond dissociation energy of eV.
Solution.
Convert using cm eV:
so the zero-point energy is
This is of the dissociation energy — small but not negligible, and it must be included whenever bond strengths are compared. It also explains why the measured dissociation energy of H differs from that of D: the heavier isotope has smaller and hence a lower zero-point energy, so it sits deeper in the same potential well and is harder to break. The potential curve is identical; only the nuclear mass differs.
2.8Summary
A time-independent gives stationary states (Thm. 2.2.1); nothing observable evolves in one, so motion requires a superposition.
and are continuous wherever is finite (Thm. 2.2.2); the -th bound state has nodes (Thm. 2.2.3).
Free particle: , , no quantization — the continuum. It is normalized either in a box or to ; the convention matters. A packet moves at .
Infinite well: , . Confinement quantizes, and .
Finite well: matching gives the transcendental conditions (even) and (odd), solved graphically in terms of and . There are bound states, always at least one, and the wave function penetrates the classically forbidden region as .
Barrier: , reducing to for a thick barrier. The exponential sensitivity underlies the tunnelling microscope and strong-field ionization.
Harmonic oscillator: , , , and . Equal spacing and a nonzero zero-point energy are its two signature features.
2.9Exercises
The infinite well, start to finish. Derive Eqs. (2.15) and (2.17) yourself, applying both boundary conditions and carrying out the normalization integral. Then verify explicitly.
Matching at a step. Derive Eq. (2.22) from Eq. (2.21), and Eq. (2.23) by the same route for the odd solutions. Explain why dividing the two matching equations is legitimate and what it accomplishes.
Counting bound states. A well has eV and half-width nm, for an electron.
Tunnelling. Repeat Example 2.6.1 for a proton instead of an electron, at the same energy, height and width nm. By what factor does change, and which quantity in is responsible? Comment on why tunnelling is an electronic phenomenon far more often than a nuclear one.
Oscillator algebra.
Hermite polynomials. Use Eq. (2.43) to generate and and check them against Eq. (2.44). Then verify that from Eq. (2.42) is normalized, using .
2.10Project: Solving One-Dimensional Problems Numerically
The problem. Build a general numerical solver for Eq. (2.4) and validate it against every exact result in this chapter. This solver is reused in Chapters 3, 4, 5 and 7, so build it to be trusted.
Work in atomic units (), where Eq. (2.4) is .
On paper. Discretize on a uniform grid using . Write down the matrix explicitly, giving its diagonal and off-diagonal entries.
On the computer. Validate against the infinite well: take on with at both ends, and compare the lowest five eigenvalues with Eq. (2.15). Report the relative error and how it scales when you halve — you should see it fall by about four, since the finite difference is second-order accurate.
On the computer. Validate against the harmonic oscillator: take on a domain wide enough that has decayed, and confirm for . Plot your and against Eqs. (2.42) and (2.44).
On the computer. Now the finite well. Take on and zero outside, choose and giving , and find all bound states. Check the count against Theorem 2.5.1, check the parity alternation, and compare each energy with a numerical solution of Eq. (2.25).
On the computer. Plot one bound state on a logarithmic vertical axis and confirm that the tail outside the well is a straight line of slope , with from Eq. (2.19). This is Remark 2.5.1 made quantitative.
On the computer. Tunnelling. Rather than eigenvalues, compute from Eq. (2.29) for a barrier of your choice and plot it against from to on a logarithmic scale. Mark . Comment on what happens above the barrier, where classically would be exactly .
What has to move. One animation: a Gaussian wave packet built as in Eq. (2.9) approaching your barrier, with shown as it splits into a reflected and a transmitted part. Caption it with the fraction that got through, and compare that fraction with Eq. (2.29) evaluated at the packet's central energy.
The check. Part (b) is the one that certifies the solver. If the error does not fall by a factor of four when is halved, the discretization is wrong — most often a missing factor of or in the matrix. Fix it before going further; every later chapter depends on this code.
Be ready to answer. In part (f), transmission above the barrier is not , and oscillates. Explain the oscillation physically — what is interfering with what — and identify the energies at which returns exactly to .