Why do we assume the potential is independent of time in the Schrödinger equation?Time-Dependent Potentials in Quantum MechanicsSchrödinger Equation: Eigenmomentum?Bound states of the Schrödinger equation on $S^1times mathbbR^3$An operator on the other side of the Schrödinger equationWhy isn't the Time-Independent Schrödinger Equation an equation of motion?How can a solution of the time-independent Schrödinger equation evolve in space?Time dependent and time independent Schrödinger equationsHow is the Schrödinger equation solved for time varying curved potential barriers?2D time-independent Schrödinger EquationWhy do you need symmetric and antisymmetric solutions of the time-independent Schrödinger Equation by a given potential $V(x)$?Derivation of time independent Schrödinger equation
Is it true that cut time means "play twice as fast as written"?
Why aren't space telescopes put in GEO?
How to cut a climbing rope?
Did 20% of US soldiers in Vietnam use heroin, 95% of whom quit afterwards?
How to respond to upset student?
What does $!# mean in Shell scripting?
Website returning plaintext password
Is it truly impossible to tell what a CPU is doing?
A steel cutting sword?
How to let other coworkers know that I don't share my coworker's political views?
USPS Back Room - Trespassing?
Is the Unsullied name meant to be ironic? How did it come to be?
Have 1.5% of all nuclear reactors ever built melted down?
Why would Ryanair allow me to book this journey through a third party, but not through their own website?
Can I connect my older mathematica front-end to the free wolfram engine?
Count rotary dial pulses in a phone number (including letters)
First Match - awk
Construct a word ladder
Why do most published works in medical imaging try to reduce false positives?
The art of clickbait captions
How to attach cable mounting points to a bicycle frame?
Specific alignment within beginalign environment
My players want to grind XP but we're using milestone advancement
Should one buy new hardware after a system compromise?
Why do we assume the potential is independent of time in the Schrödinger equation?
Time-Dependent Potentials in Quantum MechanicsSchrödinger Equation: Eigenmomentum?Bound states of the Schrödinger equation on $S^1times mathbbR^3$An operator on the other side of the Schrödinger equationWhy isn't the Time-Independent Schrödinger Equation an equation of motion?How can a solution of the time-independent Schrödinger equation evolve in space?Time dependent and time independent Schrödinger equationsHow is the Schrödinger equation solved for time varying curved potential barriers?2D time-independent Schrödinger EquationWhy do you need symmetric and antisymmetric solutions of the time-independent Schrödinger Equation by a given potential $V(x)$?Derivation of time independent Schrödinger equation
$begingroup$
In just about every text I read (online or in paper), when they handle the time-dependent Schrödinger Equation, I see something along the lines of "we always assume the potential is independent of time." Why is this? Are there not plenty of circumstances when this isn't valid? Aren't most experiments done with varying potentials (NMR for example, the magnetic field, which affects the potential, is changing in time)? Is this assumption made in textbooks just for pedagogical reasons, to make life easier?
If we don't make this assumption, then it seems to me that the Schrödinger equation is no longer separable and we can no longer just apply the time-evolution operator as is usually done (and the time-independent equation is no longer valid).
Perhaps tangential to the main question but: Also, if we want to solve it numerically, it seems to me we also can't simplify using split-step Fourier transforms or into a form handled by Runge-Kutta. Is this correct? I'm especially interested in exploring the numerical analysis, but I guess I should post that question in the scientific computing SE.
Of course, when I say "potential" I mean $Vleft(vec r, tright)$ in the equation
beginequation
ihbarfracpartialpartial t Psileft(vec r, tright) = left[frac-hbar^22mnabla^2+V(vec r, t)right]Psileft(vec r, tright)
endequation
and the assumption whose justification I don't understand is $Vleft(vec r, tright)=Vleft(vec rright)$.
quantum-mechanics potential schroedinger-equation time
edited May 12 at 7:17
Nat
3,77242033
asked May 12 at 5:21
FunctionalDefectFunctionalDefect
234
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
In just about every text I read (online or in paper), when they handle the time-dependent Schrödinger Equation, I see something along the lines of "we always assume the potential is independent of time." Why is this? Are there not plenty of circumstances when this isn't valid? Aren't most experiments done with varying potentials (NMR for example, the magnetic field, which affects the potential, is changing in time)? Is this assumption made in textbooks just for pedagogical reasons, to make life easier?
If we don't make this assumption, then it seems to me that the Schrödinger equation is no longer separable and we can no longer just apply the time-evolution operator as is usually done (and the time-independent equation is no longer valid).
Perhaps tangential to the main question but: Also, if we want to solve it numerically, it seems to me we also can't simplify using split-step Fourier transforms or into a form handled by Runge-Kutta. Is this correct? I'm especially interested in exploring the numerical analysis, but I guess I should post that question in the scientific computing SE.
Of course, when I say "potential" I mean $Vleft(vec r, tright)$ in the equation
beginequation
ihbarfracpartialpartial t Psileft(vec r, tright) = left[frac-hbar^22mnabla^2+V(vec r, t)right]Psileft(vec r, tright)
endequation
and the assumption whose justification I don't understand is $Vleft(vec r, tright)=Vleft(vec rright)$.
quantum-mechanics potential schroedinger-equation time
edited May 12 at 7:17
Nat
3,77242033
asked May 12 at 5:21
FunctionalDefectFunctionalDefect
234
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Out of curiosity, what does "tangential to another question" mean? Is it just a fancy way to say it is related, or does it mean the relation between the two questions is specific and if so how?
$endgroup$
– Exocytosis
May 12 at 5:34
$begingroup$
I just mean the question about the numerical analysis is related to my main question superficially. I wanted to ask it but I'm not sure this is the right place -- I would expect this is the right place for the rest of the questions, though.
$endgroup$
– FunctionalDefect
May 12 at 5:38
$begingroup$
Related: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyson_series
$endgroup$
– Feynmans Out for Grumpy Cat
May 12 at 5:44
1
$begingroup$
Related (maybe even duplicate): physics.stackexchange.com/q/17768
$endgroup$
– user191954
May 12 at 6:03
add a comment |
$begingroup$
In just about every text I read (online or in paper), when they handle the time-dependent Schrödinger Equation, I see something along the lines of "we always assume the potential is independent of time." Why is this? Are there not plenty of circumstances when this isn't valid? Aren't most experiments done with varying potentials (NMR for example, the magnetic field, which affects the potential, is changing in time)? Is this assumption made in textbooks just for pedagogical reasons, to make life easier?
If we don't make this assumption, then it seems to me that the Schrödinger equation is no longer separable and we can no longer just apply the time-evolution operator as is usually done (and the time-independent equation is no longer valid).
Perhaps tangential to the main question but: Also, if we want to solve it numerically, it seems to me we also can't simplify using split-step Fourier transforms or into a form handled by Runge-Kutta. Is this correct? I'm especially interested in exploring the numerical analysis, but I guess I should post that question in the scientific computing SE.
Of course, when I say "potential" I mean $Vleft(vec r, tright)$ in the equation
beginequation
ihbarfracpartialpartial t Psileft(vec r, tright) = left[frac-hbar^22mnabla^2+V(vec r, t)right]Psileft(vec r, tright)
endequation
and the assumption whose justification I don't understand is $Vleft(vec r, tright)=Vleft(vec rright)$.
quantum-mechanics potential schroedinger-equation time
edited May 12 at 7:17
Nat
3,77242033
asked May 12 at 5:21
FunctionalDefectFunctionalDefect
234
$endgroup$
In just about every text I read (online or in paper), when they handle the time-dependent Schrödinger Equation, I see something along the lines of "we always assume the potential is independent of time." Why is this? Are there not plenty of circumstances when this isn't valid? Aren't most experiments done with varying potentials (NMR for example, the magnetic field, which affects the potential, is changing in time)? Is this assumption made in textbooks just for pedagogical reasons, to make life easier?
If we don't make this assumption, then it seems to me that the Schrödinger equation is no longer separable and we can no longer just apply the time-evolution operator as is usually done (and the time-independent equation is no longer valid).
Perhaps tangential to the main question but: Also, if we want to solve it numerically, it seems to me we also can't simplify using split-step Fourier transforms or into a form handled by Runge-Kutta. Is this correct? I'm especially interested in exploring the numerical analysis, but I guess I should post that question in the scientific computing SE.
Of course, when I say "potential" I mean $Vleft(vec r, tright)$ in the equation
beginequation
ihbarfracpartialpartial t Psileft(vec r, tright) = left[frac-hbar^22mnabla^2+V(vec r, t)right]Psileft(vec r, tright)
endequation
and the assumption whose justification I don't understand is $Vleft(vec r, tright)=Vleft(vec rright)$.
quantum-mechanics potential schroedinger-equation time
quantum-mechanics potential schroedinger-equation time
edited May 12 at 7:17
Nat
3,77242033
asked May 12 at 5:21
FunctionalDefectFunctionalDefect
234
edited May 12 at 7:17
Nat
3,77242033
asked May 12 at 5:21
FunctionalDefectFunctionalDefect
234
edited May 12 at 7:17
Nat
3,77242033
edited May 12 at 7:17
Nat
3,77242033
edited May 12 at 7:17
Nat
3,77242033
3,77242033
asked May 12 at 5:21
FunctionalDefectFunctionalDefect
234
asked May 12 at 5:21
FunctionalDefectFunctionalDefect
234
asked May 12 at 5:21
FunctionalDefectFunctionalDefect
234
234
$begingroup$
Out of curiosity, what does "tangential to another question" mean? Is it just a fancy way to say it is related, or does it mean the relation between the two questions is specific and if so how?
$endgroup$
– Exocytosis
May 12 at 5:34
$begingroup$
I just mean the question about the numerical analysis is related to my main question superficially. I wanted to ask it but I'm not sure this is the right place -- I would expect this is the right place for the rest of the questions, though.
$endgroup$
– FunctionalDefect
May 12 at 5:38
$begingroup$
Related: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyson_series
$endgroup$
– Feynmans Out for Grumpy Cat
May 12 at 5:44
1
$begingroup$
Related (maybe even duplicate): physics.stackexchange.com/q/17768
$endgroup$
– user191954
May 12 at 6:03
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Out of curiosity, what does "tangential to another question" mean? Is it just a fancy way to say it is related, or does it mean the relation between the two questions is specific and if so how?
$endgroup$
– Exocytosis
May 12 at 5:34
$begingroup$
I just mean the question about the numerical analysis is related to my main question superficially. I wanted to ask it but I'm not sure this is the right place -- I would expect this is the right place for the rest of the questions, though.
$endgroup$
– FunctionalDefect
May 12 at 5:38
$begingroup$
Related: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyson_series
$endgroup$
– Feynmans Out for Grumpy Cat
May 12 at 5:44
1
$begingroup$
Related (maybe even duplicate): physics.stackexchange.com/q/17768
$endgroup$
– user191954
May 12 at 6:03
$begingroup$
Out of curiosity, what does "tangential to another question" mean? Is it just a fancy way to say it is related, or does it mean the relation between the two questions is specific and if so how?
$endgroup$
– Exocytosis
May 12 at 5:34
$begingroup$
Out of curiosity, what does "tangential to another question" mean? Is it just a fancy way to say it is related, or does it mean the relation between the two questions is specific and if so how?
$endgroup$
– Exocytosis
May 12 at 5:34
$begingroup$
I just mean the question about the numerical analysis is related to my main question superficially. I wanted to ask it but I'm not sure this is the right place -- I would expect this is the right place for the rest of the questions, though.
$endgroup$
– FunctionalDefect
May 12 at 5:38
$begingroup$
I just mean the question about the numerical analysis is related to my main question superficially. I wanted to ask it but I'm not sure this is the right place -- I would expect this is the right place for the rest of the questions, though.
$endgroup$
– FunctionalDefect
May 12 at 5:38
$begingroup$
Related: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyson_series
$endgroup$
– Feynmans Out for Grumpy Cat
May 12 at 5:44
$begingroup$
Related: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyson_series
$endgroup$
– Feynmans Out for Grumpy Cat
May 12 at 5:44
1
1
$begingroup$
Related (maybe even duplicate): physics.stackexchange.com/q/17768
$endgroup$
– user191954
May 12 at 6:03
$begingroup$
Related (maybe even duplicate): physics.stackexchange.com/q/17768
$endgroup$
– user191954
May 12 at 6:03
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
There are plenty of situations where the potential depends on time. The core reason you haven't seen them is likely that you haven't been looking in the right places.
However, that said, there is indeed a clear separation between the static and the time-dependent components of the potential. For the vast majority of experiments where we use a time-dependent probe to interact with the system, the probe is extremely weak (by several orders of magnitude) when compared to the natural hamiltonian of the system. This means that it is best treated using perturbation theory, so that the best strategy is to solve the time-independent Schrödinger equation for the dominating structural part of the hamiltonian (which generally doesn't depend on time) and then worry about the probe.
Moreover, a huge number of experiments are done, for various reasons, using oscillating potentials which are very close to monochromatic. For those potentials, it is often possible to move to a 'rotating frame' in which the interaction hamiltonian effectively becomes static, which makes the analysis much simpler.
Still, there's plenty of situations where none of this is valid, particularly if the probe is strong enough to get out of the perturbative regime. But even then, it is still important to have the structure of the system (i.e. the eigenstates of the interaction-free hamiltonian) at hand, as they are generally important parts of the analysis, even when they no longer play an explicit role in solving the TDSE.
If you want a deeper exploration of these themes, I recommend David Tannor's Quantum Mechanics: A Time-Dependent Perspective.
And finally,
Also, if we want to solve it numerically, it seems to me we also can't simplify using split-step Fourier transforms or into a form handled by Runge-Kutta. Is this correct?
No, it's not. Time-dependent potentials are perfectly solvable using the standard numerical methods. They might need a small bit of fine-tuning, but nothing more.
answered May 12 at 6:09
Emilio PisantyEmilio Pisanty
88.3k23223455
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Right, of course I had forgotten about studying time-dependent perturbations. Could you name some examples where the probe would be out of the perturbative regime (or just a system that might be studied without perturbation theory)? As for numerical methods, I do not see how to use e.g. Runge-Kutta, since my understanding is that RK4 solves equations of the form $partial_t Psi = f(x,Psi)$ but now we have $f(x,t,Psi)$ since $V$ depends on $t$ in addition to $x$.
$endgroup$
– FunctionalDefect
May 12 at 19:10
1
$begingroup$
Good examples from my neck of the woods are high-order harmonic generation and above-threshold ionization in the tunnelling regime. Doubtless there are others.
$endgroup$
– Emilio Pisanty
May 12 at 19:17
$begingroup$
Regarding numerical methods: are you seriously doubting that the TDSE can be solved numerically? If you've only been shown a restricted class of Runge-Kutta solvers, then go look for a text that deals with broader variants of the method. This google search is a good starting point - the zoo of methods for time-dependent QM is far too broad to mention here. Pretty much every method here, other than eigenvalue methods, can be used for time-dependent problems.
$endgroup$
– Emilio Pisanty
May 12 at 19:23
$begingroup$
No, of course I am not doubting it can be solved numerically; just don't understand how the standard methods apply, which to me amounts to RK (I have very limited numerical PDE experience). Thanks for the resources.
$endgroup$
– FunctionalDefect
May 12 at 19:38
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "151"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f479497%2fwhy-do-we-assume-the-potential-is-independent-of-time-in-the-schr%25c3%25b6dinger-equatio%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
There are plenty of situations where the potential depends on time. The core reason you haven't seen them is likely that you haven't been looking in the right places.
However, that said, there is indeed a clear separation between the static and the time-dependent components of the potential. For the vast majority of experiments where we use a time-dependent probe to interact with the system, the probe is extremely weak (by several orders of magnitude) when compared to the natural hamiltonian of the system. This means that it is best treated using perturbation theory, so that the best strategy is to solve the time-independent Schrödinger equation for the dominating structural part of the hamiltonian (which generally doesn't depend on time) and then worry about the probe.
Moreover, a huge number of experiments are done, for various reasons, using oscillating potentials which are very close to monochromatic. For those potentials, it is often possible to move to a 'rotating frame' in which the interaction hamiltonian effectively becomes static, which makes the analysis much simpler.
Still, there's plenty of situations where none of this is valid, particularly if the probe is strong enough to get out of the perturbative regime. But even then, it is still important to have the structure of the system (i.e. the eigenstates of the interaction-free hamiltonian) at hand, as they are generally important parts of the analysis, even when they no longer play an explicit role in solving the TDSE.
If you want a deeper exploration of these themes, I recommend David Tannor's Quantum Mechanics: A Time-Dependent Perspective.
And finally,
Also, if we want to solve it numerically, it seems to me we also can't simplify using split-step Fourier transforms or into a form handled by Runge-Kutta. Is this correct?
No, it's not. Time-dependent potentials are perfectly solvable using the standard numerical methods. They might need a small bit of fine-tuning, but nothing more.
answered May 12 at 6:09
Emilio PisantyEmilio Pisanty
88.3k23223455
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Right, of course I had forgotten about studying time-dependent perturbations. Could you name some examples where the probe would be out of the perturbative regime (or just a system that might be studied without perturbation theory)? As for numerical methods, I do not see how to use e.g. Runge-Kutta, since my understanding is that RK4 solves equations of the form $partial_t Psi = f(x,Psi)$ but now we have $f(x,t,Psi)$ since $V$ depends on $t$ in addition to $x$.
$endgroup$
– FunctionalDefect
May 12 at 19:10
1
$begingroup$
Good examples from my neck of the woods are high-order harmonic generation and above-threshold ionization in the tunnelling regime. Doubtless there are others.
$endgroup$
– Emilio Pisanty
May 12 at 19:17
$begingroup$
Regarding numerical methods: are you seriously doubting that the TDSE can be solved numerically? If you've only been shown a restricted class of Runge-Kutta solvers, then go look for a text that deals with broader variants of the method. This google search is a good starting point - the zoo of methods for time-dependent QM is far too broad to mention here. Pretty much every method here, other than eigenvalue methods, can be used for time-dependent problems.
$endgroup$
– Emilio Pisanty
May 12 at 19:23
$begingroup$
No, of course I am not doubting it can be solved numerically; just don't understand how the standard methods apply, which to me amounts to RK (I have very limited numerical PDE experience). Thanks for the resources.
$endgroup$
– FunctionalDefect
May 12 at 19:38
add a comment |
$begingroup$
There are plenty of situations where the potential depends on time. The core reason you haven't seen them is likely that you haven't been looking in the right places.
However, that said, there is indeed a clear separation between the static and the time-dependent components of the potential. For the vast majority of experiments where we use a time-dependent probe to interact with the system, the probe is extremely weak (by several orders of magnitude) when compared to the natural hamiltonian of the system. This means that it is best treated using perturbation theory, so that the best strategy is to solve the time-independent Schrödinger equation for the dominating structural part of the hamiltonian (which generally doesn't depend on time) and then worry about the probe.
Moreover, a huge number of experiments are done, for various reasons, using oscillating potentials which are very close to monochromatic. For those potentials, it is often possible to move to a 'rotating frame' in which the interaction hamiltonian effectively becomes static, which makes the analysis much simpler.
Still, there's plenty of situations where none of this is valid, particularly if the probe is strong enough to get out of the perturbative regime. But even then, it is still important to have the structure of the system (i.e. the eigenstates of the interaction-free hamiltonian) at hand, as they are generally important parts of the analysis, even when they no longer play an explicit role in solving the TDSE.
If you want a deeper exploration of these themes, I recommend David Tannor's Quantum Mechanics: A Time-Dependent Perspective.
And finally,
Also, if we want to solve it numerically, it seems to me we also can't simplify using split-step Fourier transforms or into a form handled by Runge-Kutta. Is this correct?
No, it's not. Time-dependent potentials are perfectly solvable using the standard numerical methods. They might need a small bit of fine-tuning, but nothing more.
answered May 12 at 6:09
Emilio PisantyEmilio Pisanty
88.3k23223455
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Right, of course I had forgotten about studying time-dependent perturbations. Could you name some examples where the probe would be out of the perturbative regime (or just a system that might be studied without perturbation theory)? As for numerical methods, I do not see how to use e.g. Runge-Kutta, since my understanding is that RK4 solves equations of the form $partial_t Psi = f(x,Psi)$ but now we have $f(x,t,Psi)$ since $V$ depends on $t$ in addition to $x$.
$endgroup$
– FunctionalDefect
May 12 at 19:10
1
$begingroup$
Good examples from my neck of the woods are high-order harmonic generation and above-threshold ionization in the tunnelling regime. Doubtless there are others.
$endgroup$
– Emilio Pisanty
May 12 at 19:17
$begingroup$
Regarding numerical methods: are you seriously doubting that the TDSE can be solved numerically? If you've only been shown a restricted class of Runge-Kutta solvers, then go look for a text that deals with broader variants of the method. This google search is a good starting point - the zoo of methods for time-dependent QM is far too broad to mention here. Pretty much every method here, other than eigenvalue methods, can be used for time-dependent problems.
$endgroup$
– Emilio Pisanty
May 12 at 19:23
$begingroup$
No, of course I am not doubting it can be solved numerically; just don't understand how the standard methods apply, which to me amounts to RK (I have very limited numerical PDE experience). Thanks for the resources.
$endgroup$
– FunctionalDefect
May 12 at 19:38
add a comment |
$begingroup$
There are plenty of situations where the potential depends on time. The core reason you haven't seen them is likely that you haven't been looking in the right places.
However, that said, there is indeed a clear separation between the static and the time-dependent components of the potential. For the vast majority of experiments where we use a time-dependent probe to interact with the system, the probe is extremely weak (by several orders of magnitude) when compared to the natural hamiltonian of the system. This means that it is best treated using perturbation theory, so that the best strategy is to solve the time-independent Schrödinger equation for the dominating structural part of the hamiltonian (which generally doesn't depend on time) and then worry about the probe.
Moreover, a huge number of experiments are done, for various reasons, using oscillating potentials which are very close to monochromatic. For those potentials, it is often possible to move to a 'rotating frame' in which the interaction hamiltonian effectively becomes static, which makes the analysis much simpler.
Still, there's plenty of situations where none of this is valid, particularly if the probe is strong enough to get out of the perturbative regime. But even then, it is still important to have the structure of the system (i.e. the eigenstates of the interaction-free hamiltonian) at hand, as they are generally important parts of the analysis, even when they no longer play an explicit role in solving the TDSE.
If you want a deeper exploration of these themes, I recommend David Tannor's Quantum Mechanics: A Time-Dependent Perspective.
And finally,
Also, if we want to solve it numerically, it seems to me we also can't simplify using split-step Fourier transforms or into a form handled by Runge-Kutta. Is this correct?
No, it's not. Time-dependent potentials are perfectly solvable using the standard numerical methods. They might need a small bit of fine-tuning, but nothing more.
answered May 12 at 6:09
Emilio PisantyEmilio Pisanty
88.3k23223455
$endgroup$
There are plenty of situations where the potential depends on time. The core reason you haven't seen them is likely that you haven't been looking in the right places.
However, that said, there is indeed a clear separation between the static and the time-dependent components of the potential. For the vast majority of experiments where we use a time-dependent probe to interact with the system, the probe is extremely weak (by several orders of magnitude) when compared to the natural hamiltonian of the system. This means that it is best treated using perturbation theory, so that the best strategy is to solve the time-independent Schrödinger equation for the dominating structural part of the hamiltonian (which generally doesn't depend on time) and then worry about the probe.
Moreover, a huge number of experiments are done, for various reasons, using oscillating potentials which are very close to monochromatic. For those potentials, it is often possible to move to a 'rotating frame' in which the interaction hamiltonian effectively becomes static, which makes the analysis much simpler.
Still, there's plenty of situations where none of this is valid, particularly if the probe is strong enough to get out of the perturbative regime. But even then, it is still important to have the structure of the system (i.e. the eigenstates of the interaction-free hamiltonian) at hand, as they are generally important parts of the analysis, even when they no longer play an explicit role in solving the TDSE.
If you want a deeper exploration of these themes, I recommend David Tannor's Quantum Mechanics: A Time-Dependent Perspective.
And finally,
Also, if we want to solve it numerically, it seems to me we also can't simplify using split-step Fourier transforms or into a form handled by Runge-Kutta. Is this correct?
No, it's not. Time-dependent potentials are perfectly solvable using the standard numerical methods. They might need a small bit of fine-tuning, but nothing more.
answered May 12 at 6:09
Emilio PisantyEmilio Pisanty
88.3k23223455
edited May 12 at 6:16
answered May 12 at 6:09
Emilio PisantyEmilio Pisanty
88.3k23223455
answered May 12 at 6:09
Emilio PisantyEmilio Pisanty
88.3k23223455
answered May 12 at 6:09
Emilio PisantyEmilio Pisanty
88.3k23223455
88.3k23223455
$begingroup$
Right, of course I had forgotten about studying time-dependent perturbations. Could you name some examples where the probe would be out of the perturbative regime (or just a system that might be studied without perturbation theory)? As for numerical methods, I do not see how to use e.g. Runge-Kutta, since my understanding is that RK4 solves equations of the form $partial_t Psi = f(x,Psi)$ but now we have $f(x,t,Psi)$ since $V$ depends on $t$ in addition to $x$.
$endgroup$
– FunctionalDefect
May 12 at 19:10
1
$begingroup$
Good examples from my neck of the woods are high-order harmonic generation and above-threshold ionization in the tunnelling regime. Doubtless there are others.
$endgroup$
– Emilio Pisanty
May 12 at 19:17
$begingroup$
Regarding numerical methods: are you seriously doubting that the TDSE can be solved numerically? If you've only been shown a restricted class of Runge-Kutta solvers, then go look for a text that deals with broader variants of the method. This google search is a good starting point - the zoo of methods for time-dependent QM is far too broad to mention here. Pretty much every method here, other than eigenvalue methods, can be used for time-dependent problems.
$endgroup$
– Emilio Pisanty
May 12 at 19:23
$begingroup$
No, of course I am not doubting it can be solved numerically; just don't understand how the standard methods apply, which to me amounts to RK (I have very limited numerical PDE experience). Thanks for the resources.
$endgroup$
– FunctionalDefect
May 12 at 19:38
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Right, of course I had forgotten about studying time-dependent perturbations. Could you name some examples where the probe would be out of the perturbative regime (or just a system that might be studied without perturbation theory)? As for numerical methods, I do not see how to use e.g. Runge-Kutta, since my understanding is that RK4 solves equations of the form $partial_t Psi = f(x,Psi)$ but now we have $f(x,t,Psi)$ since $V$ depends on $t$ in addition to $x$.
$endgroup$
– FunctionalDefect
May 12 at 19:10
1
$begingroup$
Good examples from my neck of the woods are high-order harmonic generation and above-threshold ionization in the tunnelling regime. Doubtless there are others.
$endgroup$
– Emilio Pisanty
May 12 at 19:17
$begingroup$
Regarding numerical methods: are you seriously doubting that the TDSE can be solved numerically? If you've only been shown a restricted class of Runge-Kutta solvers, then go look for a text that deals with broader variants of the method. This google search is a good starting point - the zoo of methods for time-dependent QM is far too broad to mention here. Pretty much every method here, other than eigenvalue methods, can be used for time-dependent problems.
$endgroup$
– Emilio Pisanty
May 12 at 19:23
$begingroup$
No, of course I am not doubting it can be solved numerically; just don't understand how the standard methods apply, which to me amounts to RK (I have very limited numerical PDE experience). Thanks for the resources.
$endgroup$
– FunctionalDefect
May 12 at 19:38
$begingroup$
Right, of course I had forgotten about studying time-dependent perturbations. Could you name some examples where the probe would be out of the perturbative regime (or just a system that might be studied without perturbation theory)? As for numerical methods, I do not see how to use e.g. Runge-Kutta, since my understanding is that RK4 solves equations of the form $partial_t Psi = f(x,Psi)$ but now we have $f(x,t,Psi)$ since $V$ depends on $t$ in addition to $x$.
$endgroup$
– FunctionalDefect
May 12 at 19:10
$begingroup$
Right, of course I had forgotten about studying time-dependent perturbations. Could you name some examples where the probe would be out of the perturbative regime (or just a system that might be studied without perturbation theory)? As for numerical methods, I do not see how to use e.g. Runge-Kutta, since my understanding is that RK4 solves equations of the form $partial_t Psi = f(x,Psi)$ but now we have $f(x,t,Psi)$ since $V$ depends on $t$ in addition to $x$.
$endgroup$
– FunctionalDefect
May 12 at 19:10
1
1
$begingroup$
Good examples from my neck of the woods are high-order harmonic generation and above-threshold ionization in the tunnelling regime. Doubtless there are others.
$endgroup$
– Emilio Pisanty
May 12 at 19:17
$begingroup$
Good examples from my neck of the woods are high-order harmonic generation and above-threshold ionization in the tunnelling regime. Doubtless there are others.
$endgroup$
– Emilio Pisanty
May 12 at 19:17
$begingroup$
Regarding numerical methods: are you seriously doubting that the TDSE can be solved numerically? If you've only been shown a restricted class of Runge-Kutta solvers, then go look for a text that deals with broader variants of the method. This google search is a good starting point - the zoo of methods for time-dependent QM is far too broad to mention here. Pretty much every method here, other than eigenvalue methods, can be used for time-dependent problems.
$endgroup$
– Emilio Pisanty
May 12 at 19:23
$begingroup$
Regarding numerical methods: are you seriously doubting that the TDSE can be solved numerically? If you've only been shown a restricted class of Runge-Kutta solvers, then go look for a text that deals with broader variants of the method. This google search is a good starting point - the zoo of methods for time-dependent QM is far too broad to mention here. Pretty much every method here, other than eigenvalue methods, can be used for time-dependent problems.
$endgroup$
– Emilio Pisanty
May 12 at 19:23
$begingroup$
No, of course I am not doubting it can be solved numerically; just don't understand how the standard methods apply, which to me amounts to RK (I have very limited numerical PDE experience). Thanks for the resources.
$endgroup$
– FunctionalDefect
May 12 at 19:38
$begingroup$
No, of course I am not doubting it can be solved numerically; just don't understand how the standard methods apply, which to me amounts to RK (I have very limited numerical PDE experience). Thanks for the resources.
$endgroup$
– FunctionalDefect
May 12 at 19:38
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Physics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f479497%2fwhy-do-we-assume-the-potential-is-independent-of-time-in-the-schr%25c3%25b6dinger-equatio%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
$begingroup$
Out of curiosity, what does "tangential to another question" mean? Is it just a fancy way to say it is related, or does it mean the relation between the two questions is specific and if so how?
$endgroup$
– Exocytosis
May 12 at 5:34
$begingroup$
I just mean the question about the numerical analysis is related to my main question superficially. I wanted to ask it but I'm not sure this is the right place -- I would expect this is the right place for the rest of the questions, though.
$endgroup$
– FunctionalDefect
May 12 at 5:38
$begingroup$
Related: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyson_series
$endgroup$
– Feynmans Out for Grumpy Cat
May 12 at 5:44
1
$begingroup$
Related (maybe even duplicate): physics.stackexchange.com/q/17768
$endgroup$
– user191954
May 12 at 6:03