Dimensionless Parameters Table
Dimensionless parameters are the knobs that actually control a canonical wave-mechanics problem. Mass, length, field strength, barrier width, and energy may look independent in dimensional form, but the physics usually depends on combinations such as , , , , , or .
This page is a lookup table. The derivation of scaling conventions is Dimensionless Variables and Scaling; the table below records the combinations most often needed when reading, solving, or numerically checking canonical model pages.
Scaling Length and Energy
Section titled “Scaling Length and Energy”For a one-dimensional problem with a geometric length , define
If a potential has characteristic height , a standard strength parameter is
Different authors may choose to be a full width, half-width, oscillator length, Bohr radius, or magnetic length. The exact numerical factors depend on that choice, but the physical question is stable: how large is the potential, phase, action, or flux compared with the natural quantum scale?
Lookup Table
Section titled “Lookup Table”| System | Natural variables | Main dimensionless parameters | What they control | Check in limits |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Free particle | , | , , | phase accumulation over a length or time | means little phase variation over the region; means rapid oscillation |
| Infinite square well | , | quantum number , eigenvalue | node count and energy scale | all dimensional energies scale as |
| Finite square well | , | depth , decay length ratio | number of bound states and leakage outside the well | approaches the infinite well; shallow wells lose excited states |
| Delta potential | , with for | in scattering | bound-state size and scattering strength | small gives strong low-energy scattering from the point interaction |
| Potential step | , | , | impedance mismatch between asymptotic regions | gives no reflection; current ratios still matter |
| Rectangular barrier | , , | opacity for | tunneling suppression and resonance widths | gives exponential suppression; at fixed height gives transparency |
| Transfer-matrix chains | region phases | interface ratios , total phase, determinant checks | interference, resonances, and current conservation | for ordinary amplitudes ; flux-normalized amplitudes give unit determinant |
| Gaussian wave packet | , | , with for the common minimum packet convention | spreading and near-plane-wave behavior | broad packets have small momentum spread; long times require boundary checks |
| Harmonic oscillator | , , | , coherent-state amplitude | universal oscillator shape, spectrum, and classicality | gives large action compared with |
| Coupled oscillators | normal coordinates | frequency ratios , coupling-to-detuning ratios | normal-mode splitting and degeneracy | integer frequency relations permit degeneracies; weak coupling can strongly mix nearly resonant modes |
| Two-level system | dimensionless time , for and | , , gap time | mixing angle, transition probability, and adiabaticity estimates | large detuning suppresses transitions; near degeneracy invalidates nondegenerate perturbation |
| Three-dimensional box | aspect ratios , , scaled energy | degeneracy patterns and density of states | taking one length to infinity makes only that direction continuous | |
| Central potentials | , dimensionless reduced radial amplitude | angular parameter , strength | centrifugal barrier and radial localization | large pushes probability away from the origin |
| Hydrogenic Coulomb problem | , | , principal quantum number , Coulomb strength encoded in | orbital size, binding energy, and Rydberg scaling | radii grow like and energies scale as |
| Rigid rotor | angles on | , , with | rotational ladder and degeneracy | approaches classical angular momentum magnitude |
| Minimal coupling | kinetic momentum scale, gauge phase | flux phase , length ratio if is uniform | gauge-covariant phase and magnetic localization | only gauge-invariant quantities should survive physical comparisons |
| Landau levels | , , | , | cyclotron radius scale, level spacing, and degeneracy | requires tracking both vanishing spacing and vanishing degeneracy density |
| Semiclassical checks | action divided by | , de Broglie wavelength over variation length | WKB validity and classical correspondence | large action alone is not enough near turning points |
Common Parameter Families
Section titled “Common Parameter Families”Several different-looking parameters express the same comparison:
- phase parameters such as compare a wavelength with a length scale;
- opacity parameters such as compare an evanescent decay length with a barrier width;
- strength parameters such as compare potential energy with localization kinetic energy;
- flux parameters such as compare area with the flux quantum scale;
- action parameters such as compare classical action with the quantum of action;
- detuning parameters such as compare an energy mismatch with a coupling.
The notation can vary. What matters is that each parameter is dimensionless and tied to a physical question.
Scaling Choices That Often Differ
Section titled “Scaling Choices That Often Differ”For a finite square well, some authors use the full width while others use the half-width . A depth parameter written with differs by a factor of four from one written with . Both are acceptable if the convention is stated.
For the harmonic oscillator, some derivations write the stationary equation with energy , while others multiply through by and use . The physics is unchanged; the oscillator length is the key scale.
In the hydrogen row, includes the chosen reduced mass , so the ionic length is . Check whether a source instead defines using the electron mass. Do not compare radial plots or expectation values until the convention is clear.
For Landau levels, the magnetic length sets the wavefunction scale, while the flux count sets degeneracy. A calculation can get right and still get the state count wrong if it ignores boundary conditions.
Common Mistakes
Section titled “Common Mistakes”- Calling a quantity dimensionless because it has been written in natural units without naming the scale.
- Mixing full-width and half-width conventions in square-well formulas.
- Treating and as interchangeable.
- Reporting a numerical grid spacing without comparing it to the smallest physical length scale.
- Comparing two oscillator plots without checking whether is measured in .
- Forgetting that is a degeneracy estimate, not a single-particle energy.
- Hiding the control parameter by setting too many constants to one at the start.
Exercises
Section titled “Exercises”- A finite square well is written with full width and depth . Define a natural kinetic energy and a dimensionless depth.
Solution
A convenient kinetic scale is
The dimensionless depth is
If a half-width is used instead, the numerical value of the strength parameter changes by a factor of four, so the convention must be stated.
- For a rectangular barrier with , explain the meaning of .
Solution
Inside the barrier, the evanescent decay constant is
Thus is the barrier width measured in decay lengths. When , transmission is exponentially suppressed; when , the barrier is thin on the evanescent scale.
- A Landau-level calculation reports the correct spacing but no degeneracy estimate. Which dimensionless parameter is missing?
Solution
The missing parameter is the number of flux-scale area units,
It controls the ideal bulk degeneracy of each Landau level in area . The energy spacing alone does not determine the number of available states.
References
Section titled “References”- C. Cohen-Tannoudji, B. Diu, and F. Laloë, Quantum Mechanics, Wiley, 1977.
- D. J. Griffiths and D. F. Schroeter, Introduction to Quantum Mechanics, 3rd ed., Cambridge University Press, 2018.
- N. J. Higham, Accuracy and Stability of Numerical Algorithms, 2nd ed., SIAM, 2002.
- R. Shankar, Principles of Quantum Mechanics, 2nd ed., Springer, 1994.