WKB Approximation to Schrödinger Equation
Consider the Schrödinger equation: $$y''(x)+EQ(x)y(x)=0,tag{1}$$
where $E>0, Q(x)>0, y(0)=y(pi)=0. $
Use WKB approximation to obtain $$y(x) sim CQ^frac{-1}{4}(x)sinBig(sqrt(E) int_{0}^{x} sqrt(Q(t) dt Big), E to infty. $$
What I did:
Let $phi(x;epsilon)=log (y(x;epsilon)).$ So, $y(x;epsilon)=exp(phi(x;epsilon).$
Substitute this to the main equation to get:
$$phi''(x;epsilon)+phi'(x;epsilon)^2+EQ(x)=0. tag{2}$$
Suppose $$phi(x;epsilon)=frac{1}{epsilon}sum_{n=0}^{infty} phi_n(x)epsilon^{n}, epsilon to 0. $$
Substitute this to $(2)$ using $phi(x;epsilon)=phi_0(x) frac{1}{epsilon}+O(1)$ we get,
$$frac{1}{epsilon}phi''_0(x)+frac{1}{epsilon^2}phi'_0(x)^2+EQ(x)+O(1)=0.$$
This implies $$epsilon phi''_0(x)+phi'_0(x)^2+epsilon^2EQ(x)+O(epsilon^2)=0.$$
So, at $O(1)$, $$phi'_0(x)^2=0.$$
This means $phi_0(x)=C$ where $C$ is constant.
We then continue to the next order by substituting $phi(x;epsilon)=phi_0(x) frac{1}{epsilon}+phi_1(x)+O(epsilon)=frac{C}{epsilon}+phi_1(x)+O(epsilon)$ to $(2)$.
We get $$phi''_1(x)+phi'_1(x)^2+EQ(x)=0.$$
This is where I'm stuck, any idea how to solve this ODE to get $phi_1(x)$?
differential-equations numerical-methods asymptotics wave-equation perturbation-theory
asked Dec 12 '18 at 15:41
XIIIXXIIIX
678
add a comment |
Consider the Schrödinger equation: $$y''(x)+EQ(x)y(x)=0,tag{1}$$
where $E>0, Q(x)>0, y(0)=y(pi)=0. $
Use WKB approximation to obtain $$y(x) sim CQ^frac{-1}{4}(x)sinBig(sqrt(E) int_{0}^{x} sqrt(Q(t) dt Big), E to infty. $$
What I did:
Let $phi(x;epsilon)=log (y(x;epsilon)).$ So, $y(x;epsilon)=exp(phi(x;epsilon).$
Substitute this to the main equation to get:
$$phi''(x;epsilon)+phi'(x;epsilon)^2+EQ(x)=0. tag{2}$$
Suppose $$phi(x;epsilon)=frac{1}{epsilon}sum_{n=0}^{infty} phi_n(x)epsilon^{n}, epsilon to 0. $$
Substitute this to $(2)$ using $phi(x;epsilon)=phi_0(x) frac{1}{epsilon}+O(1)$ we get,
$$frac{1}{epsilon}phi''_0(x)+frac{1}{epsilon^2}phi'_0(x)^2+EQ(x)+O(1)=0.$$
This implies $$epsilon phi''_0(x)+phi'_0(x)^2+epsilon^2EQ(x)+O(epsilon^2)=0.$$
So, at $O(1)$, $$phi'_0(x)^2=0.$$
This means $phi_0(x)=C$ where $C$ is constant.
We then continue to the next order by substituting $phi(x;epsilon)=phi_0(x) frac{1}{epsilon}+phi_1(x)+O(epsilon)=frac{C}{epsilon}+phi_1(x)+O(epsilon)$ to $(2)$.
We get $$phi''_1(x)+phi'_1(x)^2+EQ(x)=0.$$
This is where I'm stuck, any idea how to solve this ODE to get $phi_1(x)$?
differential-equations numerical-methods asymptotics wave-equation perturbation-theory
asked Dec 12 '18 at 15:41
XIIIXXIIIX
678
add a comment |
Consider the Schrödinger equation: $$y''(x)+EQ(x)y(x)=0,tag{1}$$
where $E>0, Q(x)>0, y(0)=y(pi)=0. $
Use WKB approximation to obtain $$y(x) sim CQ^frac{-1}{4}(x)sinBig(sqrt(E) int_{0}^{x} sqrt(Q(t) dt Big), E to infty. $$
What I did:
Let $phi(x;epsilon)=log (y(x;epsilon)).$ So, $y(x;epsilon)=exp(phi(x;epsilon).$
Substitute this to the main equation to get:
$$phi''(x;epsilon)+phi'(x;epsilon)^2+EQ(x)=0. tag{2}$$
Suppose $$phi(x;epsilon)=frac{1}{epsilon}sum_{n=0}^{infty} phi_n(x)epsilon^{n}, epsilon to 0. $$
Substitute this to $(2)$ using $phi(x;epsilon)=phi_0(x) frac{1}{epsilon}+O(1)$ we get,
$$frac{1}{epsilon}phi''_0(x)+frac{1}{epsilon^2}phi'_0(x)^2+EQ(x)+O(1)=0.$$
This implies $$epsilon phi''_0(x)+phi'_0(x)^2+epsilon^2EQ(x)+O(epsilon^2)=0.$$
So, at $O(1)$, $$phi'_0(x)^2=0.$$
This means $phi_0(x)=C$ where $C$ is constant.
We then continue to the next order by substituting $phi(x;epsilon)=phi_0(x) frac{1}{epsilon}+phi_1(x)+O(epsilon)=frac{C}{epsilon}+phi_1(x)+O(epsilon)$ to $(2)$.
We get $$phi''_1(x)+phi'_1(x)^2+EQ(x)=0.$$
This is where I'm stuck, any idea how to solve this ODE to get $phi_1(x)$?
differential-equations numerical-methods asymptotics wave-equation perturbation-theory
asked Dec 12 '18 at 15:41
XIIIXXIIIX
678
Consider the Schrödinger equation: $$y''(x)+EQ(x)y(x)=0,tag{1}$$
where $E>0, Q(x)>0, y(0)=y(pi)=0. $
Use WKB approximation to obtain $$y(x) sim CQ^frac{-1}{4}(x)sinBig(sqrt(E) int_{0}^{x} sqrt(Q(t) dt Big), E to infty. $$
What I did:
Let $phi(x;epsilon)=log (y(x;epsilon)).$ So, $y(x;epsilon)=exp(phi(x;epsilon).$
Substitute this to the main equation to get:
$$phi''(x;epsilon)+phi'(x;epsilon)^2+EQ(x)=0. tag{2}$$
Suppose $$phi(x;epsilon)=frac{1}{epsilon}sum_{n=0}^{infty} phi_n(x)epsilon^{n}, epsilon to 0. $$
Substitute this to $(2)$ using $phi(x;epsilon)=phi_0(x) frac{1}{epsilon}+O(1)$ we get,
$$frac{1}{epsilon}phi''_0(x)+frac{1}{epsilon^2}phi'_0(x)^2+EQ(x)+O(1)=0.$$
This implies $$epsilon phi''_0(x)+phi'_0(x)^2+epsilon^2EQ(x)+O(epsilon^2)=0.$$
So, at $O(1)$, $$phi'_0(x)^2=0.$$
This means $phi_0(x)=C$ where $C$ is constant.
We then continue to the next order by substituting $phi(x;epsilon)=phi_0(x) frac{1}{epsilon}+phi_1(x)+O(epsilon)=frac{C}{epsilon}+phi_1(x)+O(epsilon)$ to $(2)$.
We get $$phi''_1(x)+phi'_1(x)^2+EQ(x)=0.$$
This is where I'm stuck, any idea how to solve this ODE to get $phi_1(x)$?
differential-equations numerical-methods asymptotics wave-equation perturbation-theory
differential-equations numerical-methods asymptotics wave-equation perturbation-theory
asked Dec 12 '18 at 15:41
XIIIXXIIIX
678
asked Dec 12 '18 at 15:41
XIIIXXIIIX
678
asked Dec 12 '18 at 15:41
XIIIXXIIIX
678
asked Dec 12 '18 at 15:41
XIIIXXIIIX
678
asked Dec 12 '18 at 15:41
XIIIXXIIIX
678
678
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
No, your first balancing decision does not make sense. In the balancing you attempt to get two terms of equal magnitude/scale. You only got one dominating term, which you saw gave a trivial result in $ϕ_0=const.$ and no simplification relative to the original equation in the next equation for $ϕ_1$.
You need to include in the balancing calculations that $E$ is assumed large, and $ϵ$ small so that the balancing of the largest terms among the scale coefficients $ϵ,1,ϵ^2E$ in
$$ϵ[ϵϕ''(x;ϵ)]+[ϵϕ'(x;ϵ)]^2+ϵ^2E[Q(x)]=0$$
gives $ϵ^2E=1$. Then the equation for the first term $ϕ_0$ in the expansion of $ϕ$ is non-trivial
$$
ϕ_0'(x)^2+Q(x)=0.
$$
The next order equation gives
$$
ϕ_0''(x)+2ϕ_0'(x)ϕ_1'(x)=0implies ϕ_1'(x)=-frac{ϕ_0''(x)}{2ϕ_0'(x)}=
-frac{Q'(x)}{4Q(x)}=-frac14(ln|Q(x)|)'
$$
which when integrated gives the cited WKB approximation formula.
The next order term has the equation
$$
ϕ_1''(x)+ϕ_1'(x)^2+2ϕ_0'(x)ϕ_2'(x)=0implies ϕ_2'(x) = frac{ϕ_0'''(x)}{4ϕ_0'(x)^2} - frac{3ϕ_0''(x)^2}{8ϕ_0'(x)^3}=left(frac{ϕ_0''(x)}{4ϕ_0'(x)^2}right)'+frac{ϕ_0''(x)^2}{8ϕ_0'(x)^3}
$$
which does not look like a nice-to-integrate term.
answered Dec 12 '18 at 16:37
LutzLLutzL
56.5k42054
So, everything is fine until I said at $O(1)$, $$phi'_0(x)^2=0 ?$$ Also, Can you explain a bit more on this "You need to include in the balancing calculations that E is assumed large, so that the balancing of the largest terms gives $epsilon^2 E=1.$" How do you get $O(epsilon^2 E)=O(1)$ ?
– XIIIX
Dec 12 '18 at 20:50
1
The assumptions are that $ϕ_0'$ and $Q$ have middle scale, $ϵ$ is small and $E$ is large. In the set of scale coefficients in the equation for $ϕ_0'$, which are $ϵ,1,ϵ^2E$, you want the largest two to coincide to have a "balance", that is, to avoid that one dominates. The first will always be the smallest, so the second and the third have to be the same scale, for simplicity set them equal.
– LutzL
Dec 12 '18 at 21:01
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
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: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
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%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3036836%2fwkb-approximation-to-schr%25c3%25b6dinger-equation%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
No, your first balancing decision does not make sense. In the balancing you attempt to get two terms of equal magnitude/scale. You only got one dominating term, which you saw gave a trivial result in $ϕ_0=const.$ and no simplification relative to the original equation in the next equation for $ϕ_1$.
You need to include in the balancing calculations that $E$ is assumed large, and $ϵ$ small so that the balancing of the largest terms among the scale coefficients $ϵ,1,ϵ^2E$ in
$$ϵ[ϵϕ''(x;ϵ)]+[ϵϕ'(x;ϵ)]^2+ϵ^2E[Q(x)]=0$$
gives $ϵ^2E=1$. Then the equation for the first term $ϕ_0$ in the expansion of $ϕ$ is non-trivial
$$
ϕ_0'(x)^2+Q(x)=0.
$$
The next order equation gives
$$
ϕ_0''(x)+2ϕ_0'(x)ϕ_1'(x)=0implies ϕ_1'(x)=-frac{ϕ_0''(x)}{2ϕ_0'(x)}=
-frac{Q'(x)}{4Q(x)}=-frac14(ln|Q(x)|)'
$$
which when integrated gives the cited WKB approximation formula.
The next order term has the equation
$$
ϕ_1''(x)+ϕ_1'(x)^2+2ϕ_0'(x)ϕ_2'(x)=0implies ϕ_2'(x) = frac{ϕ_0'''(x)}{4ϕ_0'(x)^2} - frac{3ϕ_0''(x)^2}{8ϕ_0'(x)^3}=left(frac{ϕ_0''(x)}{4ϕ_0'(x)^2}right)'+frac{ϕ_0''(x)^2}{8ϕ_0'(x)^3}
$$
which does not look like a nice-to-integrate term.
answered Dec 12 '18 at 16:37
LutzLLutzL
56.5k42054
So, everything is fine until I said at $O(1)$, $$phi'_0(x)^2=0 ?$$ Also, Can you explain a bit more on this "You need to include in the balancing calculations that E is assumed large, so that the balancing of the largest terms gives $epsilon^2 E=1.$" How do you get $O(epsilon^2 E)=O(1)$ ?
– XIIIX
Dec 12 '18 at 20:50
1
The assumptions are that $ϕ_0'$ and $Q$ have middle scale, $ϵ$ is small and $E$ is large. In the set of scale coefficients in the equation for $ϕ_0'$, which are $ϵ,1,ϵ^2E$, you want the largest two to coincide to have a "balance", that is, to avoid that one dominates. The first will always be the smallest, so the second and the third have to be the same scale, for simplicity set them equal.
– LutzL
Dec 12 '18 at 21:01
add a comment |
No, your first balancing decision does not make sense. In the balancing you attempt to get two terms of equal magnitude/scale. You only got one dominating term, which you saw gave a trivial result in $ϕ_0=const.$ and no simplification relative to the original equation in the next equation for $ϕ_1$.
You need to include in the balancing calculations that $E$ is assumed large, and $ϵ$ small so that the balancing of the largest terms among the scale coefficients $ϵ,1,ϵ^2E$ in
$$ϵ[ϵϕ''(x;ϵ)]+[ϵϕ'(x;ϵ)]^2+ϵ^2E[Q(x)]=0$$
gives $ϵ^2E=1$. Then the equation for the first term $ϕ_0$ in the expansion of $ϕ$ is non-trivial
$$
ϕ_0'(x)^2+Q(x)=0.
$$
The next order equation gives
$$
ϕ_0''(x)+2ϕ_0'(x)ϕ_1'(x)=0implies ϕ_1'(x)=-frac{ϕ_0''(x)}{2ϕ_0'(x)}=
-frac{Q'(x)}{4Q(x)}=-frac14(ln|Q(x)|)'
$$
which when integrated gives the cited WKB approximation formula.
The next order term has the equation
$$
ϕ_1''(x)+ϕ_1'(x)^2+2ϕ_0'(x)ϕ_2'(x)=0implies ϕ_2'(x) = frac{ϕ_0'''(x)}{4ϕ_0'(x)^2} - frac{3ϕ_0''(x)^2}{8ϕ_0'(x)^3}=left(frac{ϕ_0''(x)}{4ϕ_0'(x)^2}right)'+frac{ϕ_0''(x)^2}{8ϕ_0'(x)^3}
$$
which does not look like a nice-to-integrate term.
answered Dec 12 '18 at 16:37
LutzLLutzL
56.5k42054
So, everything is fine until I said at $O(1)$, $$phi'_0(x)^2=0 ?$$ Also, Can you explain a bit more on this "You need to include in the balancing calculations that E is assumed large, so that the balancing of the largest terms gives $epsilon^2 E=1.$" How do you get $O(epsilon^2 E)=O(1)$ ?
– XIIIX
Dec 12 '18 at 20:50
1
The assumptions are that $ϕ_0'$ and $Q$ have middle scale, $ϵ$ is small and $E$ is large. In the set of scale coefficients in the equation for $ϕ_0'$, which are $ϵ,1,ϵ^2E$, you want the largest two to coincide to have a "balance", that is, to avoid that one dominates. The first will always be the smallest, so the second and the third have to be the same scale, for simplicity set them equal.
– LutzL
Dec 12 '18 at 21:01
add a comment |
No, your first balancing decision does not make sense. In the balancing you attempt to get two terms of equal magnitude/scale. You only got one dominating term, which you saw gave a trivial result in $ϕ_0=const.$ and no simplification relative to the original equation in the next equation for $ϕ_1$.
You need to include in the balancing calculations that $E$ is assumed large, and $ϵ$ small so that the balancing of the largest terms among the scale coefficients $ϵ,1,ϵ^2E$ in
$$ϵ[ϵϕ''(x;ϵ)]+[ϵϕ'(x;ϵ)]^2+ϵ^2E[Q(x)]=0$$
gives $ϵ^2E=1$. Then the equation for the first term $ϕ_0$ in the expansion of $ϕ$ is non-trivial
$$
ϕ_0'(x)^2+Q(x)=0.
$$
The next order equation gives
$$
ϕ_0''(x)+2ϕ_0'(x)ϕ_1'(x)=0implies ϕ_1'(x)=-frac{ϕ_0''(x)}{2ϕ_0'(x)}=
-frac{Q'(x)}{4Q(x)}=-frac14(ln|Q(x)|)'
$$
which when integrated gives the cited WKB approximation formula.
The next order term has the equation
$$
ϕ_1''(x)+ϕ_1'(x)^2+2ϕ_0'(x)ϕ_2'(x)=0implies ϕ_2'(x) = frac{ϕ_0'''(x)}{4ϕ_0'(x)^2} - frac{3ϕ_0''(x)^2}{8ϕ_0'(x)^3}=left(frac{ϕ_0''(x)}{4ϕ_0'(x)^2}right)'+frac{ϕ_0''(x)^2}{8ϕ_0'(x)^3}
$$
which does not look like a nice-to-integrate term.
answered Dec 12 '18 at 16:37
LutzLLutzL
56.5k42054
No, your first balancing decision does not make sense. In the balancing you attempt to get two terms of equal magnitude/scale. You only got one dominating term, which you saw gave a trivial result in $ϕ_0=const.$ and no simplification relative to the original equation in the next equation for $ϕ_1$.
You need to include in the balancing calculations that $E$ is assumed large, and $ϵ$ small so that the balancing of the largest terms among the scale coefficients $ϵ,1,ϵ^2E$ in
$$ϵ[ϵϕ''(x;ϵ)]+[ϵϕ'(x;ϵ)]^2+ϵ^2E[Q(x)]=0$$
gives $ϵ^2E=1$. Then the equation for the first term $ϕ_0$ in the expansion of $ϕ$ is non-trivial
$$
ϕ_0'(x)^2+Q(x)=0.
$$
The next order equation gives
$$
ϕ_0''(x)+2ϕ_0'(x)ϕ_1'(x)=0implies ϕ_1'(x)=-frac{ϕ_0''(x)}{2ϕ_0'(x)}=
-frac{Q'(x)}{4Q(x)}=-frac14(ln|Q(x)|)'
$$
which when integrated gives the cited WKB approximation formula.
The next order term has the equation
$$
ϕ_1''(x)+ϕ_1'(x)^2+2ϕ_0'(x)ϕ_2'(x)=0implies ϕ_2'(x) = frac{ϕ_0'''(x)}{4ϕ_0'(x)^2} - frac{3ϕ_0''(x)^2}{8ϕ_0'(x)^3}=left(frac{ϕ_0''(x)}{4ϕ_0'(x)^2}right)'+frac{ϕ_0''(x)^2}{8ϕ_0'(x)^3}
$$
which does not look like a nice-to-integrate term.
answered Dec 12 '18 at 16:37
LutzLLutzL
56.5k42054
edited Dec 12 '18 at 21:23
answered Dec 12 '18 at 16:37
LutzLLutzL
56.5k42054
answered Dec 12 '18 at 16:37
LutzLLutzL
56.5k42054
answered Dec 12 '18 at 16:37
LutzLLutzL
56.5k42054
56.5k42054
So, everything is fine until I said at $O(1)$, $$phi'_0(x)^2=0 ?$$ Also, Can you explain a bit more on this "You need to include in the balancing calculations that E is assumed large, so that the balancing of the largest terms gives $epsilon^2 E=1.$" How do you get $O(epsilon^2 E)=O(1)$ ?
– XIIIX
Dec 12 '18 at 20:50
1
The assumptions are that $ϕ_0'$ and $Q$ have middle scale, $ϵ$ is small and $E$ is large. In the set of scale coefficients in the equation for $ϕ_0'$, which are $ϵ,1,ϵ^2E$, you want the largest two to coincide to have a "balance", that is, to avoid that one dominates. The first will always be the smallest, so the second and the third have to be the same scale, for simplicity set them equal.
– LutzL
Dec 12 '18 at 21:01
add a comment |
So, everything is fine until I said at $O(1)$, $$phi'_0(x)^2=0 ?$$ Also, Can you explain a bit more on this "You need to include in the balancing calculations that E is assumed large, so that the balancing of the largest terms gives $epsilon^2 E=1.$" How do you get $O(epsilon^2 E)=O(1)$ ?
– XIIIX
Dec 12 '18 at 20:50
1
The assumptions are that $ϕ_0'$ and $Q$ have middle scale, $ϵ$ is small and $E$ is large. In the set of scale coefficients in the equation for $ϕ_0'$, which are $ϵ,1,ϵ^2E$, you want the largest two to coincide to have a "balance", that is, to avoid that one dominates. The first will always be the smallest, so the second and the third have to be the same scale, for simplicity set them equal.
– LutzL
Dec 12 '18 at 21:01
So, everything is fine until I said at $O(1)$, $$phi'_0(x)^2=0 ?$$ Also, Can you explain a bit more on this "You need to include in the balancing calculations that E is assumed large, so that the balancing of the largest terms gives $epsilon^2 E=1.$" How do you get $O(epsilon^2 E)=O(1)$ ?
– XIIIX
Dec 12 '18 at 20:50
So, everything is fine until I said at $O(1)$, $$phi'_0(x)^2=0 ?$$ Also, Can you explain a bit more on this "You need to include in the balancing calculations that E is assumed large, so that the balancing of the largest terms gives $epsilon^2 E=1.$" How do you get $O(epsilon^2 E)=O(1)$ ?
– XIIIX
Dec 12 '18 at 20:50
1
1
The assumptions are that $ϕ_0'$ and $Q$ have middle scale, $ϵ$ is small and $E$ is large. In the set of scale coefficients in the equation for $ϕ_0'$, which are $ϵ,1,ϵ^2E$, you want the largest two to coincide to have a "balance", that is, to avoid that one dominates. The first will always be the smallest, so the second and the third have to be the same scale, for simplicity set them equal.
– LutzL
Dec 12 '18 at 21:01
The assumptions are that $ϕ_0'$ and $Q$ have middle scale, $ϵ$ is small and $E$ is large. In the set of scale coefficients in the equation for $ϕ_0'$, which are $ϵ,1,ϵ^2E$, you want the largest two to coincide to have a "balance", that is, to avoid that one dominates. The first will always be the smallest, so the second and the third have to be the same scale, for simplicity set them equal.
– LutzL
Dec 12 '18 at 21:01
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics 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.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- 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.
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%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3036836%2fwkb-approximation-to-schr%25c3%25b6dinger-equation%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
