2.2.1. The Cartesian case
Continue our analysis with the analogous problem, where the diffusion coefficient becomes complex. In other words let’s investigate the free Schrödinger equation – still in one Cartesian coordinate:
after some trivial modification we arrive to a more suitable form for our analysis:
where
is the real "diffusion coefficient" of the equation in the language of diffusion. It is well-known in quantum mechanics, that the free Schrödinger equation has a disperse wave-packet solution which can be written in the form of
exhaustive details of the derivation and the properties can be found in numerous text books like [
5,
6,
8].
Before we derive and discuss our analytic solutions we have to summarize other available results from the literature. We start with the work of Niederer [
23] from 1972 who used the maximal kinematical invariance group to solve the free Schödinger equation. Shapalov
et al. [
24] separated the variables of the stationary Schrödinger equation and presented numerous results. Numerous group theoretical studies were performed from various authors we mention Beckers
et al. [
25] who investigated in non-relativistic quantum mechanical equations with the subgroups of the Euclidean group, where the Schrödinger or the the Pauli equations were examined with different scalar and vector potentials. It is crucial to emphasize that these studies do not mention our result in the form of Eq. (
16). To derive the expression Eq. (
12) the method of separation of variables was used, so the temporal ’t’ and the spatial ’x’ variable of the dynamics were handled separately which is the crucial point.
The investigation of wave-packets dynamics is an interesting field in quantum mechanics which helps to visualize the possible wave-particle dualistic dynamics of the quantum particle. As an interesting point we may mention the non-dispersive wave-packet solutions of Berry and Balázs which is based on Airy functions. Such solutions propagates freely without any envelope dispersion, maintaining its shape. [
26]. As an extra feature it accelerates undistorted in the absence of an external force field. Nevertheless this properties do not violate Ehrenfest’s theorem. Understanding quantum properties of matter via investigating the wave packed dynamics is a popular method with an immense literature we just mention two reviews [
27,
28].
The role and the source of time in quantum mechanics is an interesting and open ended question. In the last decades Rost and co workers published different studies about the possible interpretation of time [
29,
30].
As we learned earlier in the classical diffusion problem one can find the fundamental solution applying self-similar Ansatz, where the time and the temporal variables are not separated (but remained connected) in the self-similar reduced variable
. In this sense the classical diffusion process and the free Schrödinger equation ’handles’ space and time dynamical variables in a different way. But to find the key results of this study let’s apply the same self-similar Ansatz as above
to the Eq. (
11).
The former physical meaning of
and
remains the same as was given above. To avoid later mixing we mark with
the shape function. After the same trivial algebraic steps we get the same relations for the self-similar exponents:
and a very similar ODE as Eq. (
4) in the form of:
With the help of Maple 12 we can easily evaluate the general solution:
where
and
are still usual real integration constants and
and
are the Kummer’s M and Kummer’s U functions [
21], respectively. (Similarly to the real case an alternative formulation is also available for the solution in the form of:
it is clear to see in this form, that now the even part of solutions are real finite polynomials for negative
s. Other properties of that formula is outside the scope of this study.) We concentrate and analyze on the solutions which include the Kummer’s functions. These two equations ( Eq. (
5) and Eq. (
16) ) are the key results of our analysis.
The essential difference between the solution of the real diffusion equation Eq. (
5) and this one Eq. (
16) is immediately visible which is the missing Gaussian multiplier function. The second no less negligible difference is the complex argument of both Kummer’s functions.
To perform an in-depth analysis we have to systematically investigate the
dependencies of both Kummer’s functions. To accelerate this process it is useful to evaluate the first few Taylor expansion terms of the functions where we can clearly see the role of the
parameter.
Try to analyze the properties of this truncated finite series. The first term – Kummer’s M function – is always an odd function and can be defined for arbitrary
. Furthermore the odd members are real and the even members are purely complex. For negative half-integer
values we get finite polynomials. The second term – the Kummer’s U function – has bit more tricky structure, – due to the analytic properties of the Gamma function [
21] - for negative integer
s the function has even symmetry, for negative half-integer
values (if
) the function has an odd symmetry. For all positive
values the function has no even or odd symmetry. The exact
parameter dependence of the solution is a complicated problem. To solve this difficulty we apply an empirical method and evaluate the shape functions
s for various
values. Due to the complex argument of the solution we present the real the complex and the absolute value of the solution. Firstly, figure. (1) shows the results for the Kummer’s M function.
The first, the second and the third figure show the real, the imaginary and the absolute value of
function for
. Having in mind the Kummer’s transformation formula [
21] (13.2.39)
we can find interesting unexpected identities during the analysis like:
,
or even
,
for the Kummer’s M functions only. This is the reason why only five curves are visible on fig. (1c). Some other curves coincide. A more detailed analysis showed that only for we get oscillatory but decaying solutions which could have later physical interest.
Figure (2) presents the real, imaginary and absolute values of the function for the same values. It is clear to see that, negative values give divergent shape functions which are from physical reasons out of our interest. Positive s give decaying solutions at infinity with an additional cusp in the origin. (Cusp means now a point where the function has a finite numerical value but the derivative is indefinite.)
Figure (3) shows the absolute value squared of the wave function for Kummer’s U and Kummer’s M functions if . We found that for all the function has a general temporal and spatial decay. Which is of course not enough for integrability. We performed a large number of numerical integrations to find out the convergence properties and we may say that for the convergence is easy to see with interval doubling. However below the convergence becomes very slow. We have no rigorous mathematical proof where lies the general convergence limit of .
Figure 1.
The
and the
are the real, the complex and the absolute values of the
function in Eq. (
16) for
. The black,blue,red,green, gray, brown and yellow lines are for
and 1, respectively.
Figure 1.
The
and the
are the real, the complex and the absolute values of the
function in Eq. (
16) for
. The black,blue,red,green, gray, brown and yellow lines are for
and 1, respectively.
Figure 2.
The and are the real, the complex and the absolute values of the function in for . The black,blue,red,green, gray, brown and yellow lines are for and 1, respectively.
Figure 2.
The and are the real, the complex and the absolute values of the function in for . The black,blue,red,green, gray, brown and yellow lines are for and 1, respectively.
For the other function the situation is a bit more different. For we get the lowest lying oscillating solution which has all local minimums equal to zero. All other solutions lie above this function. Having performed large number of numerical integrations we can say with great certainty no convergence can be achieved for any kind of values.
Figure 3.
The
of Eq. (
16) for
and
the upper
figure shows the Kummer U and the lower
is the Kummer M function, respectively.
Figure 3.
The
of Eq. (
16) for
and
the upper
figure shows the Kummer U and the lower
is the Kummer M function, respectively.
2.2.2. Spherical coordinate system
To have a complete analysis we investigate the spherically case as well:
With the Ansatz of
we immediately arrive to a similar ODE of
with the usual constraints of
and
and diffusion constant of
The solutions are:
where
and
are still the Kummer’s function. Note, the two relevant difference to the Cartesian solutions, are the lack of the extra
dependence and the shift in the first argument of the Kummer’s functions. To understand the properties of this solution we have to make a regular parameter study, namely how the solution depends on the free parameter
. Figure (4) and figure (5) show the shape functions for different
s, for the Kummer’s M and for the Kummer’s U functions. On fig. (4) we clearly see the different kind of properties of the Kummer’s M functions, again the real imaginary and the absolute values are all presented. We can see different regimes again depending on the
parameter. Some results are divergent, some solutions have oscillations. Fig. (5) shows the behavior of the Kummer’s U functions. Note, that no oscillations are present here. Of course some solutions are divergent in the origin which is the general property of the Kummer’s U functions.
For completeness Fig.(6) presents two possible radial particle density functions expressions. Note, that the Kummer’s M function shows some temporal wavy structure which is familiar from the "ordinary" quantum mechanic solutions. The Kummer’s U functions (which are the irregular solutions) has a very quick decay in space and time with a high value in the origin. Both functions have integrability for some values (e.g. ) therefor these solutions might be considered as "physical wave functions" as well.