38

Could you give me an idea of what bound states mean and what is their importance in quantum-mechanics problems with a potential (e.g. a potential described by a delta function)?

Why, when a stable bound state exists, the energies of the related stationary wavefunctions are negative?

I figured it out, mathematically (for instance in the case of a potential described by a Delta function), but what is the physical meaning?

Qmechanic
  • 201,751
Charlie
  • 1,084

7 Answers7

47

If you have a copy of Griffiths, he has a nice discussion of this in the delta function potential section. In summary, if the energy is less than the potential at $-\infty$ and $+\infty$, then it is a bound state, and the spectrum will be discrete: $$ \Psi\left(x,t\right) = \sum_n c_n \Psi_n\left(x,t\right). $$ Otherwise (if the energy is greater than the potential at $-\infty$ or $+\infty$), it is a scattering state, and the spectrum will be continuous: $$ \Psi\left(x,t\right) = \int dk \ c\left(k\right) \Psi_k\left(x,t\right). $$ For a potential like the infinite square well or harmonic oscillator, the potential goes to $+\infty$ at $\pm \infty$, so there are only bound states.

For a free particle ($V=0$), the energy can never be less than the potential anywhere***, so there are only scattering states.

For the hydrogen atom, $V\left(r\right) = - a / r$ with $a > 0$, so there are bound states for $E < 0$ and scattering states for $E>0$.


Update

*** @Alex asked a couple questions in the comments about why $E>0$ for a free particle, so I thought I'd expand on this point.

If you rearrange the time independent Schrödinger equation as $$ \psi''= \frac{2m}{\hbar^2} \left(V-E\right) \psi $$ you see that $\psi''$ and $\psi$ would have the same sign for all $x$ if $E < V_{min}$, and $\psi$ would not be normalizable (can't go to $0$ at $\pm\infty$).

But why do we discount the $E<V_{min}=0$ solutions for this reason, yet keep the $E>0$ solutions, $\psi = e^{ikx}$, when they too aren't normalizable?

The answer is to consider the normalization of the total wave function at $t=0$, using the fact that if a wave function is normalized at $t=0$, it will stay normalized for all time (see argument starting at equation 147 here):

$$ \left<\Psi | \Psi\right> = \int dx \ \Psi^*\left(x,0\right) \Psi\left(x,0\right) = \int dk' \int dk \ c^*\left(k'\right) c\left(k\right) \left[\int dx \ \psi^*_{k'}\left(x\right) \psi_k\left(x\right)\right] $$

For $E>0$, $\psi_k\left(x\right) = e^{ikx}$ where $k^2 = 2 m E / \hbar^2$, and the $x$ integral in square brackets is $2\pi\delta\left(k-k'\right)$, so

$$ \left<\Psi | \Psi\right> = 2\pi \int dk \ \left|c\left(k\right)\right|^2 $$ which can equal $1$ for a suitable choice of $c\left(k\right)$.

For $E<0$, $\psi_k\left(x\right) = e^{kx}$ where $k^2 = - 2 m E / \hbar^2$, and the $x$ integral in square brackets diverges, so $\left<\Psi | \Psi\right>$ cannot equal $1$.

Eric Angle
  • 2,926
  • @EricAngle Why can the energy never be less than $V=0$ for a free particle? – Alex Oct 04 '16 at 18:43
  • 2
    @Alex With the time independent Schrödinger equation rearranged as $\psi'' = 2m/\hbar^2 \left(V-E\right) \psi$, $\psi''$ and $\psi$ would have the same sign for all $x$ if $E < V_{min}$, and $\psi$ would not be normalizable (can't go to $0$ at $\pm \infty$). – Eric Angle Oct 12 '16 at 12:34
  • @EricAngle Okay thanks. Just to confirm, the $\psi$ you have in your comment, is this the energy eigenstates (stationary states)? – Alex Oct 18 '16 at 20:16
  • @Alex Yes, $H \psi = E \psi$. – Eric Angle Oct 19 '16 at 13:14
  • 2
    @EricAngle I see that if we consider $E < 0$ then as you say the eigenfunctions are not normalizable but are you then implying that if we consider energy eigenstates of the free particle ($V=0$) with $E > 0$: $$\psi'' = -\frac{2m}{\hbar^2}E\psi,$$ then considering $E >0$ gives us normalizable eigenfunctions? But as I understand the energy eigenfunctions are not normalizable for a free particle since a free particle cannot exist in a stationary state. So we reject $E < 0$ since the solutions are not normalizable but then we end up with non normalizable solutions anyway? Thanks for your time. – Alex Nov 07 '16 at 14:57
  • @EricAngle I think I am understanding it somewhere wrong but what if 0 > E > V? Does the energy for scattered states are always positive? – Rima Aug 16 '20 at 14:29
22

Barry Simon writes:

One of the more intriguing questions concerns the presence of discrete eigenvalues of positive energy (that is, square-integrable eigenfunctions with positive eigenvalues) . There is a highly non-rigorous but physically appealing argument which assures us that such positive energy “bound states” cannot exist. On the other hand, there is an ancient, explicit example due to von Neumann and Wigner which presents a fairly reasonable potential $V$, with $V(r) \to 0$ as $r \to \infty$ and which possesses an eigenfunction with $E = 1$.
The potential$$V(r)=\frac{-32 \sin r[g(r)^3 \cos r-3g(r)^2\sin^3r+g(r)\cos r+sin^3r]}{[1+g(r)^2]^2}$$ with $g(r)=2r-\sin2r$ has the eigenvalue +1 with eigenfunction $$u(r)=\frac{\sin r}{r(1+g(r)^2)}$$ On Positive Eigenvalues of One-Body Schrodinger Operators

In a 2019 paper Simon explains:

Consider on $R^ν$ , the equation $(−∆ + V )φ = λφ$ with $V (x) \to 0$ as $|x| \to \infty$ and $λ > 0$. Naively, one might expect that no solution, $φ$, can be in $L^2(R^ν , d^νx)$. The intuition is clear: classically, if the particle is in the region $\{ x \mid |x| > R\}$, where $R$ is picked so large that $|x| \gt R \Longrightarrow V (x) \lt λ/2$ and if the velocity is pointing outwards, the particle is not captured and so not bound. Due to tunneling, in quantum theory, a particle will always reach this region so there should not be positive energy bound states. This intuition of no embedded eigenvalues is incomplete due to the fact that bumps can cause reflections even when the bumps are smaller than the energy, so an infinite number of small bumps which do not decay too rapidly might be able to trap a particle.

18

It means the same thing it means in classical mechanics: if it is energetically forbidden to separate to arbitrarily large distance they are "bound".

The Earth is gravitationally bound to the Sun and the Moon to the Earth. Electrons in a neutral atom are electomagnetically bound to the nucleus. A pea rolling around in the bottom of a bowl is bound.

By contrast the Voyager probes are (barely) unbound and will fly (slowly) off into the galaxy.

  • But when I have only one particle and a "attractive contact potential" ($g\delta(x-a)$) we talk about states bounded to... the potential? The $\delta$ rapresent a sort of potential created by another particle? – Charlie Jan 03 '14 at 22:56
  • 4
    Thinking of those states as "bound to the potential" is usually enough to get a good picture of the physics of the particle. Nevertheless "external potentials" are always used as a model of the interaction with something else, when you don't really care about the dynamics of the "something else".

    A very good example of this is how you derive the energy levels for an atom as the bound states of the electron in the external potential generated by the nucleus.

    – fqq Jan 04 '14 at 20:22
9

Mathematically, bound states are states that decay sufficiently fast at infinity, so that the probability of finding the particle they describe in far away regions of space is negligible.

It has long been conjectured, based on physical intuition, it is the case for the meaningful quantum mechanical states, such as the eigenfunctions of the Hamiltonian (it is not expected that an atomic electron has a sensible probability of being at infinite distance from its nucleus).

This has been proved mathematically in the eighties, mainly by S.Agmon. Roughly speaking, the result is the following: eigenfunctions of the Schrödinger operator (i.e. corresponding to the discrete spectrum) are exponentially decaying in space. So if $\psi_n(x)$ are such eigenfunctions, $\lvert \psi_n(x)\rvert\leq A e^{-B\lvert x\rvert}$, for some positive constants $A,B$.

yuggib
  • 11,987
8

I) From the perspective of the TDSE. A solution $({\bf r},t)\mapsto \Psi({\bf r},t)$ in $d$ spatial dimensions is a bound state if $$\lim_{R\to\infty}\sup_{t}\int_{\mathbb{R}^d\backslash B({\bf 0},R)} d^dr~|\Psi({\bf r},t)|^2 ~=~0,$$ where $B({\bf 0},R)$ denotes a ball at the origin with radius $R$, cf. e.g. Ref. 1-2.

II) From the perspective of the TISE. Cutting through the technicalities a bound state in $d$ spatial dimensions is essentiatially defined as

  • (i) a solution ${\bf r}\mapsto \psi({\bf r})$ to the TISE

such that

  • (ii) $\psi\in{\cal L}^2(\mathbb{R}^d)$ is square integrable/normalizable.
  1. Condition (ii) is (under relatively mild assumptions$^1$) equivalent to that

    • (iii) $\lim_{R\to\infty}\int_{\mathbb{R}^d\backslash B({\bf 0},R)} d^dr~|\psi({\bf r})|^2 ~=~0.$
  2. Sufficient conditions for a bound state are condition (i) together with

    • (iv) if the potential is asymptotically bigger than the energy, in the sense that
      $$\exists k,K>0\forall |{\bf r}|\geq K:~~ V({\bf r})-E ~\geq~ \frac{\hbar^2k^2}{2m},$$

    and

    • (v) if $\psi$ is bounded $$\exists c>0\forall {\bf r}\in\mathbb{R}^d:~~ |\psi({\bf r})|~\leq ~c.$$

    See e.g. my Phys.SE answer here for the 1D case.

  3. Condition (iv) hints that there is a threshold energy (given by the infimum asymptotic value of the potential) above which a continuum of scattering states exist.

  4. Above the threshold energy, the solution (i) is oscillatory and on physically grounds generically expected to violate condition (ii). This explains the second half of OP's title question.

  5. However, it should be stressed that in special cases bound states in the continuum may exist, see e.g. the answer by Keith McClary.

References:

  1. A. Teta, A Mathematical Primer on QM, 2018; p. 137. (Hat tip: Apoorv Potnis.)

  2. Ph. Blanchard & E. Brüning, Mathematical Methods in Physics: Distributions, Hilbert Space Operators, and Variational Methods, 2nd ed, Progr. Math. Phys. 26 (2015); p. 431. (Hat tip: Apoorv Potnis.)

--

$^1$ Here we assume for simplicity that the potential $V$ is not so singular in the interior/bulk, that the solution (i) becomes singular there.

Qmechanic
  • 201,751
  • Not related to physics, but I got a notification of your reply eve though you didn't write @ApoorvPotnis. Does everyone in the comment thread get notified now when someone replies? Thanks for replying though. 2. Reg. bound states, I wasn't able to find the definition given on the wiki anywhere. I found similar but technically simpler (but rigorous) definitions in the book of Teta and in the book of Blanchard and Bruning.
  • – Apoorv Potnis Mar 18 '23 at 20:29
  • 1
  • To a certain extent. You would have to check [meta.se] for the specifics. 2. Thanks for the references.
  • – Qmechanic Mar 19 '23 at 09:57
  • 1
    Hm. On p. 137 Teta assumes that scattering states are normalizable, which seems to fly in the face of the usual physics treatment such as e.g. here. – Qmechanic Mar 20 '23 at 09:35
  • I am not an expert in this topic (I am just a student), I would have to read more before I completely understand. Is there anything wrong in Teta? – Apoorv Potnis Mar 20 '23 at 21:03