Ian MacPherson | Searcharxiv

arXiv2025

A simple quantum dot: numerical and variational solutions

We describe a simple quantum dot that consists of two crossed two-dimensional troughs. As such there is no potential well; nonetheless, this geometry gives rise to a bound state, centred on the point at which these troughs cross one another. This problem is interesting both because the existence of a bound state may surprise students and because it can be solved using a variety of computational techniques, including matrix mechanics, finite differences, and mode matching. We present these methods and show how the mode-matching method in this case provides the most accurate solution to the problem. Additionally, the mode-matching method can be used to generate a simple wave function that yields the lowest energy known to date to arise out of an analytical variational solution for this problem.

cond-mat.mes-hall↗

arXiv2022

Deviation of Mercury's spin axis from an exact Cassini state induced by dissipation

We compute predictions of the deviation of Mercury's spin axis from an exact Cassini state caused by tidal dissipation, and viscous and electromagnetic (EM) friction at the core-mantle boundary (CMB) and inner core boundary (ICB). Viscous friction at the CMB generates a phase lead, viscous and EM friction at the ICB produce a phase lag; the magnitude of the deviation depends on the inner core size, kinematic viscosity and magnetic field strength, but cannot exceed an upper bound. For a small inner core, viscous friction at the CMB results in a maximum phase lead of 0.027 arcsec. For a large inner core (radius $>1000$ km), EM friction at the ICB generates the largest phase lag, but it does not exceed 0.1 arcsec. Elastic deformations induced by the misaligned fluid and solid cores play a first order role in the phase lead/lag caused by viscous and EM coupling, and contribute to a perturbation in mantle obliquity on par with that caused by tidal deformations. Tidal dissipation results in a phase lag and its magnitude (in units of arcsec) is given by the empirical relation (80/Q), where Q is the quality factor; Q=80 results in a phase lag of ~1 arcsec. A large inner core with a low viscosity of the order of 10^{17} Pa s or lower can significantly affect $Q$ and thus the resulting phase lag. The limited mantle phase lag suggested by observations (<10 arcsec) implies a lower limit on the bulk mantle viscosity of approximately 10^{17} Pa s.

astro-ph.EP↗