K. Hagino
Department of Physics, Kyoto University, Kyoto 606-8502, Japan
Abstract
A standard way to solve a Schrödinger equation is to discreteize the radial coordinates
and apply a numerical method for a differential equation, such as the Runge-Kutta method or
the Numerov method. Here I employ a discrete basis formalism based on a finite mesh method
as a simpler alternative,
with which the numerical computation can be easily implemented by ordinary linear algebra
operations.
I compare the numerical convergence of the
Numerov integration method to the finite mesh method for calculating
penetrabilities of a one-dimensional potential barrier, and show
that the latter approach has better convergence properties.
I Introduction
In most of physics problems, a Schrödinger equation cannot be solved
analytically but has to be solved numerically. For a bound state problem,
one may expand wave functions on some finite basis and diagonalize the resultant
Hamiltonian matrix. Alternatively, one may discretize the radial coordinates and
successively obtain a wave function at the mesh points with e.g., the Runge-Kutta
method or the Numerov method koonin .
A yet different method, referred to as a discrete-basis formalism111
Even though the term “discrete-basis formalism” was not introduced in Ref. FBA18 ,
the method given in Ref. FBA18 is equivalent to the discrete-basis formalism
shown in later publications BY2019 ; YBF2020 ; YBF2021 .,
has been proposed in Ref. FBA18 .
In this method, one first forms a Hamiltonian matrix based on discretized radial
meshes and solve it with a linear algebra with appropriate boundary conditions.
An advantage of this method is that the method is well compatible with a many-body
Hamiltonian, in particular in a configuration-interaction formulation BH2022 ; BH2023 ; UH2023 .
Notice that the discrete-basis formalism is referred to as a 3D mesh method in the context of
nuclear density functional theoryDavies80 ; ev8 ; ev8-2 ; tanimura2015 ; ren2017 ; li2020 .
Even though the discrete-basis formalism has been applied
to an induced fission problem FBA18 ; BY2019 ; YBF2020 ; YBF2021 ; BH2023 ,
its applicability has not yet been clarified, at least for a scattering problem.
In this paper, I therefore apply the discrete-basis formalism to a simple
one-dimensional barrier penetration problem, and carry out a comparative study
of the numerical accuracy. To this end, I shall consider a Gaussian barrier and
compare the penetrabilities obtained
with the discrete-basis formalism to those with the standard Numerov method.
The paper is organized as follows. In Sec. II, I will detail the discrete-basis formalism
for a one-dimensional problem. In Sec. III, I will apply it to a barrier penetration of
a one-dimensional Gaussian barrier and discuss the applicability of the discrete-basis formalism.
I will then summarize the paper in Sec. IV.
II Discrete-basis formalism for barrier penetration
Consider a one-dimensional system for a particle with mass under a potential .
The Hamiltonian for this system reads,
(1)
I discretize the radial coordinate as ,
and consider the model space from to
.
Using the 3-point formula for the kinetic energy in ,
the Hamiltonian (1) is transformed to a matrix form of
(2)
where is defined as and .
The wave function then obeys
(3)
In the absence of the potential , the wave function
obeys the equation
In the presence of the potential , I
consider the case where the particle is incident from the left hand side of the potential.
Assuming that the potential almost vanishes at , the wave
function is given by .
Substituting this into Eq. (3), one finds
(7)
where is defined as
and the Green’s function is defined as .
Assuming that the potential is negligible at and , the wave functions
at these points are given as linear superpositions of
with and 2, respectively. I parameterize the coefficients of the linear superpositions in terms of
and the wave function as,
(8)
(9)
This is equivalent to assume
(10)
Substituting Eqs. (8) and (9) into Eq. (3)
and using Eq. (6), one finds
Writing the wave function as ,
the penetrability reads,
(14)
III Penetrability of a Gaussian barrier
Let us now numerically evaluate the penetrability for a given potential. For this purpose, I
consider a Gaussian potential,
(15)
Following Refs. dasso83 ; dasso83b ; HB04 ,
the parameters are chosen to be MeV and fm together with , where
is the nucleon mass, to mimic the fusion reaction of Ni+Ni.
We set fm and fm.
The upper panel of Fig. 1 shows
the penetrabilities of the Gaussian barrier obtained with fm.
The dashed line and the solid circles denote the results with the standard Numerov method and the
discrete-basis formalism, respectively. The value of is small enough in this case, and
both the
method lead to accurate results.
The lower panel shows the results with a larger value of , that is, fm.
In this case, the numerical error is significantly large with the Numerov method:
the penetrabilities do not reach unity even at energies well above the barrier (see the dashed line).
This is the case also with the modified Numverov method ccfull , with which the
penetrability
even exceeds unity at high energies with a non-monotonic behavior
(see the dotted line). In marked contrast, the results with the discrete-basis formalism is rather
robust and the penetrabilities are almost the same as the one with fm shown in the upper panel.
Notice that the discrete-basis formalism employs the simple 3-point formula for
the kinetic energy, while a more sophisticated formula is used in the Numerov and the
modified Numerov methods.
Yet, it is interesting to notice that the discrete-basis method is numerically more stable than the Numerov and the modified Numerov methods.
We point out that cannot be taken larger than , though.
If exceeds this value, the right hand side of Eq. (6) exceeds unity
and the wave number cannot be defined unless it is extended to a complex number.
IV Summary
I examined the applicability of the discrete-basis method for a reaction theory.
To this end, I considered barrier penetration of a one-dimensional Gaussian barrier.
It was demonstrated that the discrete-basis method provides a more accurate and stable
method than the standard Numerov method.
This property may be helpful in obtaining numerically stable solutions of
coupled-channels equations HOM2022 ; HT2012 .
The discrete-basis formalism has a good connection to a many-body Hamiltonian.
As a matter of fact, there have been several applications of this method to microscopic
descriptions of induced fission. In such applications, absorbing potentials, or imaginary
energies, are introduced to a model Hamiltonian, and the absorbing probability is computed
with the so called Datta formula FBA18 . Even though the model setup is somewhat different
from a barrier problem in one-dimension, in which there is no absorbing part in the Hamiltonian,
the conclusion in this paper would remain the same in the fission problem as well.
Acknowledgements.
The author thanks G.F. Bertsch for helpful discussions and for a careful reading of the manuscript.
This work was supported in part by
JSPS KAKENHI Grant Numbers JP19K03861 and JP23K03414.
References
(1)S.E. Koonin and D.C. Meredith, Computational Physics (Addison-Wesley, Reading, 1990).
(2)
P. Fanto, G.F. Bertsch, and Y. Alhassid, Phys. Rev. C98, 014604 (2018).
(3) G.F. Bertsch and W. Younes, Ann. Phys. 403 68 (2019).
(4)
Y. Alhassid, G.F. Bertsch, and P. Fanto,
Ann. of Phys.419, 168233 (2020).
(5)
Y. Alhassid, G.F. Bertsch, and P. Fanto,
Ann. of Phys.424, 168381 (2021).
(6)
G.F. Bertsch and K. Hagino, Phys. Rev. C105, 034618 (2022).
(7)
G.F. Bertsch and K. Hagino, Phys. Rev. C107, 044615 (2023).
(8)
K. Uzawa and K. Hagino, Phys. Rev. C108, 024319 (2023).
(9)
K.T.R. Davies, H. Flocard, S. Krieger, and M.S. Weiss,
Nucl. Phys. A 342, 111 (1980).
(10)
P. Bonche, H. Flocard, and P.-H. Heenen,
Comput. Phys. Commun. 171, 49 (2005).
(11)
W. Ryssens, V. Hellemans, M. Bender, and P.-H. Heenen,
Comput. Phys. Commun. 187, 175 (2015).
(12)
Y. Tanimura, K. Hagino, and H.Z. Liang,
Prog. Theo. Exp. Phys. 2015, 073D01 (2015).
(13)
Z.X. Ren, S.Q. Zhang, and J. Meng,
Phys. Rev. C95, 024313 (2017).
(14)
B. Li, Z.X. Ren, and P.W. Zhao,
Phys. Rev. C102, 044307 (2020).
(15)
C.H. Dasso, S. Landowne, and A. Winther, Nucl. Phys. A405, 381 (1983).
(16)
C.H. Dasso, S. Landowne, and A. Winther, Nucl. Phys. A407, 221 (1983).
(17)
K. Hagino and A.B. Balantekin, Phys. Rev. A70, 032106 (2004).
(18)
K. Hagino, N. Rowley, and A.T. Kruppa, Comput. Phys. Comm. 123, 143 (1999).
(19)K. Hagino, K. Ogata, and A.M. Moro,
Prog. in Part. and Nucl. Phys. 125, 103951 (2022).
(20)
K. Hagino and N. Takigawa, Prog. Theo. Phys. 128, 1061 (2012).