4.5 Review

Coherent state based solutions of the time-dependent Schrodinger equation: hierarchy of approximations to the variational principle

期刊

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/0144235X.2020.1823168

关键词

Coherent states; Schrodinger equation; variational principle; Morse oscillator

资金

  1. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft [GR 1210/8-1]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This review comprehensively compares CS methods to solve the TDSE, including VCS, CCS, and HK methods, by testing on a 1D Morse oscillator for revival dynamics, focusing on the number of basis states needed for convergence and the issue of tight frames. Different discretisation strategies for phase space integrals and the apoptosis procedure in the VCS method are also discussed, with the Holstein molecular crystal model serving as an illustration.
In this review, we give a comprehensive comparison of the most widely used coherent state (CS) based methods to solve the time-dependent Schrodinger equation (TDSE). Starting from the fully variational coherent states (VCS) method, after a first approximation, the coupled coherent states (CCS) method can be derived, whereas an additional approximation leads to the semiclassical Herman-Kluk (HK) method. We numerically compare the different methods with another one, based on a static rectangular grid of coherent states (SCS), by applying all of them to the revival dynamics in a 1D Morse oscillator, with a special focus on the number of basis states (for the CCS and HK methods the number of classical trajectories) needed for convergence and the related issue of tight frames, which in principle allow the usage of CSs as if they were orthogonal. Different discretisation strategies for the occurring phase space integrals for systems with more degrees of freedom are also discussed and the apoptosis procedure that allows to circumvent the linear dependency problem in the VCS method is reviewed. The Holstein molecular crystal model serves to further illustrate the latter point.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据