MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2066921688 · doi:10.1088/1751-8113/43/8/085301

On Robin boundary conditions and the Morse potential in quantum mechanics

2010· article· en· W2066921688 on OpenAlexaff
B. Belchev, Mark A. Walton

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Physics A Mathematical and Theoretical · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicQuantum chaos and dynamical systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Lethbridge
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsQuantization (signal processing)Classical mechanicsMorse potentialPhase spaceWave functionBoundary value problemQuantum mechanicsDiagonalQuantumFree particleWigner distribution functionMathematicsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The physical origin is investigated of Robin boundary conditions for wave functions at an infinite reflecting wall. We consider both Schr\"odinger and phase-space quantum mechanics (a.k.a. deformation quantization), for this simple example of a contact interaction. A non-relativistic particle moving freely on the half-line is treated as moving on the full line in the presence of an infinite potential wall, realized as a limit of a Morse potential. We show that the wave functions for the Morse states can become those for a free particle on the half-line with Robin boundary conditions. However, Dirichlet boundary conditions (standard walls) are obtained unless a mass-dependent fine tuning (to a reflection resonance) is imposed. This phenomenon was already observed for piece-wise flat potentials, so it is not removed by smoothing. We argue that it explains why standard quantum walls are standard. Next we consider the Wigner functions (the symbols of both diagonal and off-diagonal density operator elements) of phase-space quantum mechanics. Taking the (fine-tuned) limit, we show that our Wigner functions do reduce to the expected ones on the half-line. This confirms that the Wigner transform should indeed be unmodified for this contact interaction.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.114
Threshold uncertainty score0.289

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.003
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.220 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations27
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Physics A Mathematical and TheoreticalSame topicQuantum chaos and dynamical systemsFrench-language works237,207