Classical-limit formula for matrix elements between bound states of distinct one-dimensional potentials

The Born-Oppenheimer approximation is a ubiquitous tool in quantum mechanics. While it is most commonly associated with molecular physics, it has much broader applicability. For instance, our group has invoked it to describe motional (i.e., external-degree-of-freedom) states of atoms in one-dimensional optical lattices, with the axial and radial degrees of freedom playing the respective roles of the electronic and nuclear degrees of freedom in the molecular problem Beloy et al. 2020. This theory can be extended to improve modeling of inhomogeneous excitation spectra of lattice-trapped atoms Blatt et al. 2009; Goti et al.. Such spectra contain information about the population distribution of the motional states, which is of critical importance to state-of-the-art optical lattice clocks Brown et al. 2017; Ushijima et al. 2018; Nemitz et al. 2019; Beloy et al. 2020. Due to weak radial confinement, the density of motional states is high, and a challenge that arises is finding the relative transition strengths between motional states that are part of an effective continuum of states. This challenge has inspired the present work, and we anticipate that the results can ultimately be applied to the benefit of optical lattice clocks. However, here we present the problem in more generic terms, as the results could have broader applicability.

In this work, we derive a classical-limit formula for matrix elements between bound states of distinct one-dimensional potentials. Hereafter we refer to this classical-limit formula as the CLF. Generally, the potentials are envisioned to be Born-Oppenheimer-type potentials (e.g., potential energy curves attributed to different electronic states of a diatomic molecule). However, even this interpretation is not strictly necessary. For instance, one may be interested in a confining potential that changes abruptly at some point in time, with the “before” and “after” forms of the potential being taken as the distinct potentials in our analysis. In any case, the generic problem is outlined in the following section, while leaving open the physical interpretation of the potentials.

We test the CLF by assuming specific functional forms for the potentials and operator that afford analytical solutions for the matrix elements, allowing us to calculate the matrix elements with negligible numerical error. As the classical limit is approached, we observe a tendency towards the CLF, largely validating the formula.

We consider two one-dimensional potentials $U_{i}(x)$, with $i=1,2$. The potentials are assumed to vary slowly with $x$, with each potential supporting a high density of bound states. We will consider a pair of bound states, with one state associated with each potential. The bound states satisfy the Schrödinger equation

where $\hbar$ is the reduced Planck’s constant and $m$ has dimensions of mass. Here $E_{i}$ and $\psi_{i}(x)$ are the energy and wave function for the bound state of interest associated with the potential $U_{i}(x)$. The wave functions are taken to be real and normalized. We assume $n_{i}\gg 1$, where $n_{i}$ identifies with the number of nodes of the wave function $\psi_{i}(x)$ (i.e., the ground state has $n_{i}=0$ nodes, the first-excited state has $n_{i}=1$ node, etc.). Figure 1 depicts the potentials and energy levels.

For convenience, we assume the potential difference $U_{1}(x)-U_{2}(x)$ varies monotonically with respect to $x$, with the two possible scenarios designated as “case I” and “case II.” Specifically,

where primes are used throughout to denote derivatives with respect to $x$. While this assumption simplifies some of the theory, essential aspects of the theory can be applied more generally, as discussed in Appendix A. The potentials illustrated in Figure 1 are case I.

In this work, we concern ourselves with a “matrix element” between the pair of bound states. The matrix element is taken as

where the operator function $f(x)$ is some slowly varying function of $x$. The absence of explicit integration limits indicates integration over all physically acceptable values of $x$. To facilitate our analysis, we introduce the classical turning points (CTPs) $a_{i}$ and $b_{i}$ satisfying the condition

with $a_{i}<b_{i}$. In addition to the CTPs, we introduce a “common oscillation point” (COP), denoted by $s$. The COP satisfies the condition

with $a_{1},a_{2}<s<b_{1},b_{2}$. Given our assumption that the potential difference varies monotonically with $x$, a single COP exists provided the following criteria are met

These criteria can alternatively be expressed as

or

No COP exists otherwise. Per our derivation below, the matrix element is assigned a value of zero unless a COP exists. Unless stated otherwise, we will therefore assume the criteria are met. The CTPs and the COP are depicted in Fig. 1.

To derive an expression for $M$, we leverage principles of the WKB approximation Merzbacher 1998. The WKB approximation has its limitations. For instance, the WKB wave functions, given by Eq. (15) below, become invalid as $x$ approaches the CTPs. Ultimately, we regard our results as applying to the classical limit, where the bound-state energy spectrum of each potential approaches a continuum and limitations of the WKB approximation, as well as other approximations we employ, effectively drop away (e.g., the WKB wave functions become valid arbitrarily close to the CTPs, with negligible amplitude outside the classically allowed region). With this in mind, we proceed through our derivation without addressing conditions of validity associated with each step. Likewise, we will be content with mathematically imprecise language, such as characterizing functions as either “slowly varying” or “rapidly oscillating” with $x$.

We begin by introducing the functions

valid within the classically allowed region $a_{i}\leq x\leq b_{i}$. Within the framework of the WKB approximation, $k_{i}(x)$ identifies with the local (angular) wavenumber for the wave function $\psi_{i}(x)$. In terms of $k_{i}(x)$, the defining conditions for the CTPs and COP, Eqs. (2) and (3), are

Thus, the wave functions $\psi_{1}(x)$ and $\psi_{2}(x)$ have a common local wavenumber at the COP. We further introduce phase functions $\Phi_{i}(x)$ according to the derivative relation

together with the boundary conditions

These expressions for $\Phi_{i}(x)$ imply

which is the familiar WKB condition for bound-state energies. From equations (10) and (11), we infer the result (see Appendix C for additional details)

where $g_{i}$ is the density of states for the potential $U_{i}(x)$ at the energy $E_{i}$.

According to the WKB approximation, the wave functions in the classically allowed region are given by

where $\mathcal{A}_{i}$ is a (real) normalization constant. The cosine term oscillates rapidly in $x$, while the factor in front provides a slowly varying amplitude. We obtain an expression for the normalization constant by evaluating

Replacing the rapidly oscillating cosine-squared factor with an average value of 1/2, this becomes

where we have used Eq. (12) for the density of states. We can now solve for $\mathcal{A}_{i}$ by equating the right-hand-side of Eq. (14) to unity. Inserting the result into Eq. (13) leads to the following expression for the wave functions

Using Eq. (15) for the wave functions, we can now write the matrix element as

where the functions $P(x)$ and $O(x)$ are given by

The function $P(x)$ varies slowly with $x$. Using trigonometric identities, we express $O(x)$ as

The first term on the right-hand-side of Eq. (17) oscillates rapidly in $x$ and averages to zero over short intervals. This is also the case for the second term, except in the immediate vicinity of the COP. A second-order expansion of the phase difference $\Phi_{1}(x)-\Phi_{2}(x)$ about the COP is

There is no first-order term in this expansion because $\Phi_{1}^{\prime}(s)-\Phi_{2}^{\prime}(s)=k_{1}(s)-k_{2}(s)=0$. Using $\Phi_{i}^{\prime\prime}(x)=k_{i}^{\prime}(x)$ and Eq. (10) for $k_{i}(x)$, this expansion can be written as

Here we have dropped the index on $k(s)$, since the relation $k_{1}(s)=k_{2}(s)$ makes the index superfluous.

At this point, we are prompted to consider the general integral result

For $|u|\gg 1$, the integrand oscillates rapidly with respect to $u$ and averages to zero over small intervals. Consequently, the integral is predominantly accumulated in the neighborhood of $u\approx 0$, though the infinite limits yield the simple analytical result here.

We now have the ingredients necessary to arrive at an expression for $M$. This is accomplished by taking the following steps: i) evaluate the slowly varying function $P(x)$ in Eq. (16) at the COP and pull it out of the integral, ii) retain only the second term on the right-hand-side of Eq. (17), iii) use the second-order expansion of Eq. (18) for the phase difference $\Phi_{1}(x)-\Phi_{2}(x)$, and iv) use Eq. (19) to evaluate the remaining integral of Eq. (16), which is accumulated predominantly in the vicinity of the COP. Following these steps, we arrive at the result

where the top (bottom) sign applies for case I (II).

We take additional steps aimed at the cosine factor in Eq. (20). We first acknowledge that the overall sign of the wave functions is arbitrary, with the sign of $M$ likewise being arbitrary. We thus concern ourselves with $\left|M\right|$ in what follows. Moreover, one may be interested in $\left|M\right|$ raised to some power $r$, where we assume $r>0$. Finally, as the classical limit is approached—and the bound-state spectrum for each potential approaches a continuum—the quantity $\left|M\right|^{r}$ associated with a specific pair of bound states generally loses significance. Rather, we concern ourselves with $\left|M\right|^{r}$ averaged over states that have energies in the immediate vicinity of $E_{1}$ and $E_{2}$, with $E_{1}$ and $E_{2}$ now being regarded as continuous energy variables rather than identifying with specific bound states. This averaging procedure effectively randomizes the phase quantity $\left[\Phi_{1}(s)-\Phi_{2}(s)\mp\frac{\pi}{4}\right]$ mod $\pi$. To account for these considerations, we make the following substitution

where $\Gamma(z)$ is the conventional $\Gamma$-function. As specific examples, the expression on the second line evaluates to $2/\pi$ and 1/2 for $r$ equal to 1 and 2, respectively. Thus, Eq. (20) becomes

where the averaging procedure is now implicit. We refer to this result as the CLF.

With $E_{1}$ and $E_{2}$ now regarded as continuous variables, $\left|M\right|^{r}$ is therefore an implicit function of these variables. The densities of states $g_{1}$ and $g_{2}$ are implicit functions of their respective energies $E_{1}$ and $E_{2}$. From Eq. (3), we infer that $s$ is an implicit function of the energy difference $E_{1}-E_{2}$. It follows that the quantities $f(s)$ and $\left|U_{1}^{\prime}(s)-U_{2}^{\prime}(s)\right|$ are also implicit functions of this energy difference. Finally, accounting for the explicit energy appearing on the right-hand-side of Eq. (10), the remaining factor $k(s)$ in Eq. (21) is an implicit function of both $E_{1}$ and $E_{2}$. These dependencies are exemplified in Sec. V.1 below, where specific functional forms of the potentials and operator are assumed.

Here we consider the specific case of $f(x)=1$ and $r=2$, as it allows a check of the CLF. For $f(x)=1$, the matrix element $M$ amounts to the overlap integral between wave functions. If we square this matrix element and sum over all states of either potential, we expect the result to be unity. Summing over all states of potential $U_{2}(x)$, for instance, we expect

where $n_{2}$ is used to index the states of potential $U_{2}(x)$ (see additional comments in Appendix B). Regarding $\left|M\right|^{2}$ to be a function of the continuous variables $E_{1}$ and $E_{2}$, the summation over $n_{2}$ is replaced by an integration over $E_{2}$. The number of states within a differential energy interval $dE_{2}$ at $E_{2}$ is $g_{2}dE_{2}$, where we recall that the density of states $g_{2}$ is an implicit function of $E_{2}$. The integration limits for $E_{2}$ follow from expression (II). Thus, the discrete summation $\sum_{n_{2}}\left|M\right|^{2}$ is replaced with the integral

where the top (bottom) sign applies for case I (II). The negative sign for case I accounts for the inverted ordering of the integration limits relative to expression (II).

Using Eq. (21) with $f(x)=1$ and $r=2$, the integral becomes

The $\left|M\right|^{2}$ in Eq. (23) brings factors of $1/g_{1}$ and $1/g_{2}$. The factor $1/g_{1}$ is brought outside of the integral here because it is an implicit function of $E_{1}$ only. Meanwhile, the factor $1/g_{2}$ cancels with the explicit $g_{2}$ from Eq. (23). At this point, we may perform a change of variables, taking $s$ as the integration variable rather than $E_{2}$. From Eq. (3) with $E_{1}$ treated as fixed, we find

This can be rewritten as

where the top (bottom) sign applies for case I (II). With this change of variables from $E_{2}$ to $s$, the lower and upper limits transform as $U_{2}(a_{1})\rightarrow a_{1}$ and $U_{2}(b_{1})\rightarrow b_{1}$, respectively. Using $k(s)=k_{1}(s)$, the integral becomes

which applies for both case I and case II. Using Eq. (12) for the density of states, we arrive at the expected result $I=1$.

Here we consider functional forms of $U_{i}(x)$ and $f(x)$ that afford analytical expressions for the matrix elements, as well as quantities appearing in the CLF. This allows a further check of the CLF. Our choice of potentials is partially motivated by a physical problem of interest. We reserve those details for the Conclusion, as they are not crucial for the goals of the present section.

The potentials are taken to have the form

where $\alpha$ has dimensions of inverse length and $A$ and $B_{i}$ have dimensions of energy. Here $\alpha$ and $A$ are taken to be common between the potentials, while $B_{1}$ and $B_{2}$ are distinct. We express the parameters $(\alpha,A,B_{i})$ in terms of a second set of parameters $(\epsilon,p,\nu_{i})$ as

where $\epsilon$ has dimensions of energy and $p$ and $\nu_{i}$ are dimensionless. For our purposes, we take $p$ and $\nu_{i}$ to be integers satisfying $p,\nu_{i}\gg 1$. We will regard the parameters $(\epsilon,p,\nu_{i})$ as more fundamental, with $(\alpha,A,B_{i})$ being used for conciseness as appropriate. The particle is constrained to the region $x>0$, with $U_{i}(x)\rightarrow\infty$ as $x\rightarrow 0$ and $U_{i}(x)\rightarrow 0$ as $x\rightarrow\infty$ (see additional comments in Appendix B). We restrict our attention to the bound states, which have energies $E_{i}<0$.

With the potentials given by Eq. (24), the one-dimensional time-independent Schrödinger equation reduces to the second Pöschl-Teller differential equation. Analytical solutions exist for the bound-state energies and wave functions You et al. 2013; You. The energies are given by

where the allowed values of $n_{i}$ are

The parameter $\nu_{i}$ therefore identifies with the number of bound states supported by the potential $U_{i}(x)$.

The operator function $f(x)$ is taken to have the form

Below we consider the cases $t=0$ and $t=1$. The former corresponds to $f(x)=1$, with the matrix elements amounting to overlap integrals between the wave functions. The latter provides a test of $f(x)\neq 1$.

We associate the classical limit with $\sigma\rightarrow\infty$ and fixed ratios $p{\,:\,}\nu_{1}{\,:\,}\nu_{2}$, where $\sigma$ represents any of the three parameters ($p,\nu_{1},\nu_{2}$). We further stipulate that the energy quantities $\epsilon\sigma^{2}$ remain constant as $\sigma\rightarrow\infty$. This implies that $A$, $B_{1}$, and $B_{2}$ approach constant values. It also implies that $\epsilon$ approaches zero, with the bound-state energy spectrum for each potential becoming infinitely dense. It is worth noting that, while we find it conceptually convenient to assume that $\epsilon\sigma^{2}$ is constant as $\sigma\rightarrow\infty$, so as to connect with the conventional notion of the classical limit, expressions to follow have no reliance on this assumption. Similarly, given the relation $\epsilon=\hbar^{2}\alpha^{2}/2m$, one may find it conceptually convenient to further attribute the classical limit to, e.g., $\hbar\rightarrow 0$, $\alpha\rightarrow 0$, or $m\rightarrow\infty$.

We have derived a classical-limit formula, Eq. (21), for matrix elements between bound states of distinct one-dimensional potentials. To verify the formula, we assumed functional forms for the potentials and operator that afford analytical solutions for the matrix elements and quantities within the classical-limit formula. As the classical limit is approached, results for the matrix elements exhibit a clear tendency towards the classical-limit formula, largely validating the formula.

We anticipate using the classical-limit formula to improve modeling of inhomogeneous excitation spectra of atoms trapped in near-magic-wavelength optical lattices Blatt et al. 2009; Goti et al.. Improved modeling of the inhomogeneous excitation spectra could lead to improved characterization of lattice light shifts in optical lattice clocks and, by consequence, improved optical lattice clock performance. It is worth noting that the potentials given by Eq. (24) are functionally similar to potentials that arise in this specific problem of interest, making the test comparisons here especially relevant. Namely, when the Born-Oppenheimer prescription of Ref. Beloy et al. 2020 is invoked to describe atomic motion within the optical lattice, one obtains radial potential energy curves $U_{n_{z}}(\rho)$, where $\rho$ is the radial coordinate and the quantum number $n_{z}$ labels the state of axial motion. The next step involves solving a radial Schrödinger equation, which has the form of a one-dimensional Schrödinger equation with $\rho$ taking the place of $x$. For this step, the radial potentials $U_{n_{z}}(\rho)$ must be supplemented with a centrifugal term $(\hbar^{2}/2m)(l^{2}-1/4)\rho^{-2}$, where the quantum number $l$ is the angular momentum along the lattice axis in units of $\hbar$. Regarding the functional form of Eq. (24), we note that the three “free” parameters can be chosen to exactly match the lowest-order terms in $\rho$ of the true potential, including the centrifugal term ($\propto\rho^{-2}$), the harmonic term ($\propto\rho^{2}$), and the first-anharmonic term ($\propto\rho^{4}$), while also capturing additional anharmonic contributions (further note that a potential offset has no influence on the radial wave functions). Consequently, the functional form of Eq. (24) can provide a good representation of the radial potentials inclusive of the centrifugal term.

Beyond the anticipated application described above, the classical-limit formula derived here could find broader use, such as estimating Franck-Condon factors between certain electronic states of diatomic molecules.