Why does the Schrödinger equation work so well for the Hydrogen atom despite the relativistic boundary at the nucleus?Choice of the z-axis in the Schrödinger equation for the hydrogen atomWhy do we not require higher derivatives to match at boundary when solving the Schrödinger equation in a given potential?Why are S-state solutions of Dirac equation for hydrogen atom allowed to be unbounded?Why can't the Schrödinger equation be solved exactly for multi-electron atoms? Does some solution exist even in principle?Why does the Dirac equation work for the hydrogen atom?
How to make thick Asian sauces?
What happens to foam insulation board after you pour concrete slab?
How hard would it be to convert a glider into an powered electric aircraft?
OOP demonstration in C++17 using a Pokémon
Should I "tell" my exposition or give it through dialogue?
What risks are there when you clear your cookies instead of logging off?
Secure offsite backup, even in the case of hacker root access
What happened to all the nuclear material being smuggled after the fall of the USSR?
Movie where a boy is transported into the future by an alien spaceship
Building a road to escape Earth's gravity by making a pyramid on Antartica
What is the traditional way of earning a doctorate in Germany?
How to split a string in two substrings of same length using bash?
What happens if you do emergency landing on a US base in middle of the ocean?
Traffic law UK, pedestrians
Working in the USA for living expenses only; allowed on VWP?
Finding x,y coordinates where y is largest
X-shaped crossword
How bad would a partial hash leak be, realistically?
How is it possible that Gollum speaks Westron?
Why does the Schrödinger equation work so well for the Hydrogen atom despite the relativistic boundary at the nucleus?
Reading two lines in piano
How can Iron Man's suit withstand this?
Bent spoke design wheels — feasible?
How can drunken, homicidal elves successfully conduct a wild hunt?
Why does the Schrödinger equation work so well for the Hydrogen atom despite the relativistic boundary at the nucleus?
Choice of the z-axis in the Schrödinger equation for the hydrogen atomWhy do we not require higher derivatives to match at boundary when solving the Schrödinger equation in a given potential?Why are S-state solutions of Dirac equation for hydrogen atom allowed to be unbounded?Why can't the Schrödinger equation be solved exactly for multi-electron atoms? Does some solution exist even in principle?Why does the Dirac equation work for the hydrogen atom?
$begingroup$
I have been taught that the boundary conditions are just as important as the differential equation itself when solving real, physical problems.
When the Schrödinger equation is applied to the idealized hydrogen atom it is separable and boundary conditions are applied to the radial component. I am worried about the $r=0$ boundary near the nucleus. Near the proton the electron's kinetic energy will be relativistic and looking to the Schrödinger equation itself for how this boundary should behave seems dangerous because its kinetic energy term is only a non-relativistic approximation.
Is there any physical intuition, or any math, that I can look to that should make me comfortable with the boundary condition in this region?
quantum-mechanics schroedinger-equation coordinate-systems boundary-conditions singularities
$endgroup$
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
I have been taught that the boundary conditions are just as important as the differential equation itself when solving real, physical problems.
When the Schrödinger equation is applied to the idealized hydrogen atom it is separable and boundary conditions are applied to the radial component. I am worried about the $r=0$ boundary near the nucleus. Near the proton the electron's kinetic energy will be relativistic and looking to the Schrödinger equation itself for how this boundary should behave seems dangerous because its kinetic energy term is only a non-relativistic approximation.
Is there any physical intuition, or any math, that I can look to that should make me comfortable with the boundary condition in this region?
quantum-mechanics schroedinger-equation coordinate-systems boundary-conditions singularities
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Sometimes boundary conditions aren't important. An important example is when dealing with solid state physics, it makes essentially do difference to the bulk solution what boundary condition you use at the surface of a macroscopic object. People tend to use periodic boundary conditions (definitely unphysical!) in this case.
$endgroup$
– jacob1729
9 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
My guess is that in this case, the $r^2$ in the spherical volume element tells you that there is no likelihood to find the electron at precisely $r=0$, so the exact BC you apply there is largely irrelevant. In fact, the correct one would not be what you suggest either I think, as you would need to account for the fact the potential inside the nucleus is not $1/r$.
$endgroup$
– jacob1729
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
@jacob1729 - two good points you just made .. 1) as r goes to zero the radial component can only diverge slowly enough to keep the wavefunction normalizable ... and 2) I haven't actually done the math to determine if the electron goes relativistic before it gets so close to the proton that the proton is no longer approximated as a point particle
$endgroup$
– Paul Young
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
Having thought about it, the electron Compton wavelength is 2.4pm which is much larger than the proton size (~fm) so I think you're right that relativistic effects are more important. I think the relevant criterion would be the probability to find a 1s electron in a sphere of radius $lambda_c$.
$endgroup$
– jacob1729
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
so, we now have that it cannot diverge any more quickly than $1/r$ at the nucleus, even before we worry about the equation ...
$endgroup$
– Paul Young
9 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
I have been taught that the boundary conditions are just as important as the differential equation itself when solving real, physical problems.
When the Schrödinger equation is applied to the idealized hydrogen atom it is separable and boundary conditions are applied to the radial component. I am worried about the $r=0$ boundary near the nucleus. Near the proton the electron's kinetic energy will be relativistic and looking to the Schrödinger equation itself for how this boundary should behave seems dangerous because its kinetic energy term is only a non-relativistic approximation.
Is there any physical intuition, or any math, that I can look to that should make me comfortable with the boundary condition in this region?
quantum-mechanics schroedinger-equation coordinate-systems boundary-conditions singularities
$endgroup$
I have been taught that the boundary conditions are just as important as the differential equation itself when solving real, physical problems.
When the Schrödinger equation is applied to the idealized hydrogen atom it is separable and boundary conditions are applied to the radial component. I am worried about the $r=0$ boundary near the nucleus. Near the proton the electron's kinetic energy will be relativistic and looking to the Schrödinger equation itself for how this boundary should behave seems dangerous because its kinetic energy term is only a non-relativistic approximation.
Is there any physical intuition, or any math, that I can look to that should make me comfortable with the boundary condition in this region?
quantum-mechanics schroedinger-equation coordinate-systems boundary-conditions singularities
quantum-mechanics schroedinger-equation coordinate-systems boundary-conditions singularities
edited 7 hours ago
Qmechanic♦
109k122081281
109k122081281
asked 9 hours ago
Paul YoungPaul Young
2,225623
2,225623
$begingroup$
Sometimes boundary conditions aren't important. An important example is when dealing with solid state physics, it makes essentially do difference to the bulk solution what boundary condition you use at the surface of a macroscopic object. People tend to use periodic boundary conditions (definitely unphysical!) in this case.
$endgroup$
– jacob1729
9 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
My guess is that in this case, the $r^2$ in the spherical volume element tells you that there is no likelihood to find the electron at precisely $r=0$, so the exact BC you apply there is largely irrelevant. In fact, the correct one would not be what you suggest either I think, as you would need to account for the fact the potential inside the nucleus is not $1/r$.
$endgroup$
– jacob1729
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
@jacob1729 - two good points you just made .. 1) as r goes to zero the radial component can only diverge slowly enough to keep the wavefunction normalizable ... and 2) I haven't actually done the math to determine if the electron goes relativistic before it gets so close to the proton that the proton is no longer approximated as a point particle
$endgroup$
– Paul Young
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
Having thought about it, the electron Compton wavelength is 2.4pm which is much larger than the proton size (~fm) so I think you're right that relativistic effects are more important. I think the relevant criterion would be the probability to find a 1s electron in a sphere of radius $lambda_c$.
$endgroup$
– jacob1729
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
so, we now have that it cannot diverge any more quickly than $1/r$ at the nucleus, even before we worry about the equation ...
$endgroup$
– Paul Young
9 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
Sometimes boundary conditions aren't important. An important example is when dealing with solid state physics, it makes essentially do difference to the bulk solution what boundary condition you use at the surface of a macroscopic object. People tend to use periodic boundary conditions (definitely unphysical!) in this case.
$endgroup$
– jacob1729
9 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
My guess is that in this case, the $r^2$ in the spherical volume element tells you that there is no likelihood to find the electron at precisely $r=0$, so the exact BC you apply there is largely irrelevant. In fact, the correct one would not be what you suggest either I think, as you would need to account for the fact the potential inside the nucleus is not $1/r$.
$endgroup$
– jacob1729
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
@jacob1729 - two good points you just made .. 1) as r goes to zero the radial component can only diverge slowly enough to keep the wavefunction normalizable ... and 2) I haven't actually done the math to determine if the electron goes relativistic before it gets so close to the proton that the proton is no longer approximated as a point particle
$endgroup$
– Paul Young
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
Having thought about it, the electron Compton wavelength is 2.4pm which is much larger than the proton size (~fm) so I think you're right that relativistic effects are more important. I think the relevant criterion would be the probability to find a 1s electron in a sphere of radius $lambda_c$.
$endgroup$
– jacob1729
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
so, we now have that it cannot diverge any more quickly than $1/r$ at the nucleus, even before we worry about the equation ...
$endgroup$
– Paul Young
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
Sometimes boundary conditions aren't important. An important example is when dealing with solid state physics, it makes essentially do difference to the bulk solution what boundary condition you use at the surface of a macroscopic object. People tend to use periodic boundary conditions (definitely unphysical!) in this case.
$endgroup$
– jacob1729
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
Sometimes boundary conditions aren't important. An important example is when dealing with solid state physics, it makes essentially do difference to the bulk solution what boundary condition you use at the surface of a macroscopic object. People tend to use periodic boundary conditions (definitely unphysical!) in this case.
$endgroup$
– jacob1729
9 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
My guess is that in this case, the $r^2$ in the spherical volume element tells you that there is no likelihood to find the electron at precisely $r=0$, so the exact BC you apply there is largely irrelevant. In fact, the correct one would not be what you suggest either I think, as you would need to account for the fact the potential inside the nucleus is not $1/r$.
$endgroup$
– jacob1729
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
My guess is that in this case, the $r^2$ in the spherical volume element tells you that there is no likelihood to find the electron at precisely $r=0$, so the exact BC you apply there is largely irrelevant. In fact, the correct one would not be what you suggest either I think, as you would need to account for the fact the potential inside the nucleus is not $1/r$.
$endgroup$
– jacob1729
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
@jacob1729 - two good points you just made .. 1) as r goes to zero the radial component can only diverge slowly enough to keep the wavefunction normalizable ... and 2) I haven't actually done the math to determine if the electron goes relativistic before it gets so close to the proton that the proton is no longer approximated as a point particle
$endgroup$
– Paul Young
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
@jacob1729 - two good points you just made .. 1) as r goes to zero the radial component can only diverge slowly enough to keep the wavefunction normalizable ... and 2) I haven't actually done the math to determine if the electron goes relativistic before it gets so close to the proton that the proton is no longer approximated as a point particle
$endgroup$
– Paul Young
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
Having thought about it, the electron Compton wavelength is 2.4pm which is much larger than the proton size (~fm) so I think you're right that relativistic effects are more important. I think the relevant criterion would be the probability to find a 1s electron in a sphere of radius $lambda_c$.
$endgroup$
– jacob1729
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
Having thought about it, the electron Compton wavelength is 2.4pm which is much larger than the proton size (~fm) so I think you're right that relativistic effects are more important. I think the relevant criterion would be the probability to find a 1s electron in a sphere of radius $lambda_c$.
$endgroup$
– jacob1729
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
so, we now have that it cannot diverge any more quickly than $1/r$ at the nucleus, even before we worry about the equation ...
$endgroup$
– Paul Young
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
so, we now have that it cannot diverge any more quickly than $1/r$ at the nucleus, even before we worry about the equation ...
$endgroup$
– Paul Young
9 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
In solving the Schroedinger radial equation there is no boundary condition applied at $r=0$. At $r=infty$ yes, $R(r)$ must tend to zero - so we reject the positive exponential solution; any change in that would have massive consequences. But there is no constraint laid on $R(r)$ or indeed $R'(r)$ as $r to 0$.
So there's not a change in the boundary condition. There is a change in the kinetic and potential energies due to relativistic effects and the fact that the proton is not a point charge. These do have an effect - but very small, as the volume concerned is about $10^-15$ of the volume of the atom. (Actually atomic physicists experiments can detect these effects, at least for large $Z$ atoms, thanks to some very clever and precise optical experiments.) But this is a small effect, not the game changer that a new boundary condition could give.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The boundary conditions that pick up the hydrogen wave functions are the "constraints" placed on the wave function solutions. Remember that the observable is the probability distribution from the $Ψ^*Ψ$, not a particular location.Please read the link. The solutions are within the quantum mechanic postulates after all.
There is no relativistic boundary condition because there are no orbits, only probability distributions.
Thus the solutions do not have a singularity at r=0, and in general there is a small probability of finding the electron at the origin, if the quantum numbers allow for an interaction, as with electron capture in nuclei. For the hydrogen atom there is not enough energy for a neutron to appear.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I am a tad bit worried about the GSU links because they seem to be based on an assumption of non-relativity, but that is exactly what I am worried about
$endgroup$
– Paul Young
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
But the same solutions as far as energy levels etc come out of solving the hydrogen atom with the Dirac equation, which is relativistic. quantummechanics.ucsd.edu/ph130a/130_notes/node501.html . This is due to the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics, where the constraints and the postulates are the ones determning the solutions. There is no effect of "nearing r=0" in the probability distributions in either case.
$endgroup$
– anna v
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
I don't understand the Dirac equation, but it is sounding from your answer and from Prof Barlow that since the $r=0$ boundary condition does not derive from anything that has to do with the equation, there isn't that much to worry about other than the small energy correction which should be on a "volume" scale
$endgroup$
– Paul Young
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
the link I give above says "This result gives the same answer as our non-relativistic calculation to order a^4 but is also correct to higher order. It is an exact solution to the quantum mechanics problem posed but does not include the effects of field theory, such as the Lamb shift and the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron. "
$endgroup$
– anna v
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
challenging looking link, but I see what I can do with it
$endgroup$
– Paul Young
7 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The boundary condition at r=0 is that the wave function should be finite. The Schrödinger equation for hydrogen UC atoms and likely all atoms has solutions with negative $cal l$, which are rejected because they diverge at r=0. See for example Schiff's textbook on quantum mechanics.
As for relativistic effects, you may want to compare the hydrogen energy expressions for Dirac, better, Klein-Gordon - no spin, and Schrödinger. Check out another great text, Itzykson and Zuber, for these .
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Good question. Your claim that
near the proton the electron's kinetic energy will be relativistic
is not as straightforward as it might seen. The electron's kinetic energy $langle hatT rangle = langle hatp^2 rangle / (2m)$ is a nonlocal quantity that can be equivalently expressed as either of the two integrals
$$langle hatT rangle = frac12m int d^3x psi^*(x) left(-hbar^2 nabla^2 right) psi(x) = frac12m int d^3x |hbar, bf nabla psi(x)|^2.$$
So the electron's kinetic energy "at" a particular location is not well-defined; it could be the value of either of the two integrands above at that point (or, indeed, of any other integrand that integrates to the same value over all of space).
The latter expression is the more natural one to use, though, because at least it's positive-semidefinite. We still have the problem that $hbar |nabla psi(0)|^2/(2m)$ is a "kinetic energy density" (whatever that is) rather than an actual kinetic energy, so we can't speak of how relativistic the electron is "at" the nucleus. (We could integrate over the empirical size of the nucleus, but I don't think that's really what your question is getting at - you're not asking about when the electron is literally inside the nucleus, but when it's close enough to the potential center that it's intuitively moving very quickly.)
But none of this really matters - the point is that since the integrand is positive-definite, the contribution to the kinetic energy over any particular region is always less than (or equal to) the total kinetic energy over every region. So to meaningfully check whether relativistic effects need to be taken into account, you need to calculate the total kinetic energy over all of space. This turns out to be $hbar^2/(2m a^2) = m e^4/(2 hbar^2) = (alpha^2 /2) m c^2$, where $alpha$ is the fine-structure constant. Relativistic effects are negligible if the kinetic energy is much less than the electron's rest energy, which corresponds to the condition that $alpha^2/2 = 1/37538 ll 1$, which, reassuringly, is true.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "151"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f483702%2fwhy-does-the-schr%25c3%25b6dinger-equation-work-so-well-for-the-hydrogen-atom-despite-the%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
In solving the Schroedinger radial equation there is no boundary condition applied at $r=0$. At $r=infty$ yes, $R(r)$ must tend to zero - so we reject the positive exponential solution; any change in that would have massive consequences. But there is no constraint laid on $R(r)$ or indeed $R'(r)$ as $r to 0$.
So there's not a change in the boundary condition. There is a change in the kinetic and potential energies due to relativistic effects and the fact that the proton is not a point charge. These do have an effect - but very small, as the volume concerned is about $10^-15$ of the volume of the atom. (Actually atomic physicists experiments can detect these effects, at least for large $Z$ atoms, thanks to some very clever and precise optical experiments.) But this is a small effect, not the game changer that a new boundary condition could give.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
In solving the Schroedinger radial equation there is no boundary condition applied at $r=0$. At $r=infty$ yes, $R(r)$ must tend to zero - so we reject the positive exponential solution; any change in that would have massive consequences. But there is no constraint laid on $R(r)$ or indeed $R'(r)$ as $r to 0$.
So there's not a change in the boundary condition. There is a change in the kinetic and potential energies due to relativistic effects and the fact that the proton is not a point charge. These do have an effect - but very small, as the volume concerned is about $10^-15$ of the volume of the atom. (Actually atomic physicists experiments can detect these effects, at least for large $Z$ atoms, thanks to some very clever and precise optical experiments.) But this is a small effect, not the game changer that a new boundary condition could give.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
In solving the Schroedinger radial equation there is no boundary condition applied at $r=0$. At $r=infty$ yes, $R(r)$ must tend to zero - so we reject the positive exponential solution; any change in that would have massive consequences. But there is no constraint laid on $R(r)$ or indeed $R'(r)$ as $r to 0$.
So there's not a change in the boundary condition. There is a change in the kinetic and potential energies due to relativistic effects and the fact that the proton is not a point charge. These do have an effect - but very small, as the volume concerned is about $10^-15$ of the volume of the atom. (Actually atomic physicists experiments can detect these effects, at least for large $Z$ atoms, thanks to some very clever and precise optical experiments.) But this is a small effect, not the game changer that a new boundary condition could give.
$endgroup$
In solving the Schroedinger radial equation there is no boundary condition applied at $r=0$. At $r=infty$ yes, $R(r)$ must tend to zero - so we reject the positive exponential solution; any change in that would have massive consequences. But there is no constraint laid on $R(r)$ or indeed $R'(r)$ as $r to 0$.
So there's not a change in the boundary condition. There is a change in the kinetic and potential energies due to relativistic effects and the fact that the proton is not a point charge. These do have an effect - but very small, as the volume concerned is about $10^-15$ of the volume of the atom. (Actually atomic physicists experiments can detect these effects, at least for large $Z$ atoms, thanks to some very clever and precise optical experiments.) But this is a small effect, not the game changer that a new boundary condition could give.
answered 8 hours ago
RogerJBarlowRogerJBarlow
3,438819
3,438819
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The boundary conditions that pick up the hydrogen wave functions are the "constraints" placed on the wave function solutions. Remember that the observable is the probability distribution from the $Ψ^*Ψ$, not a particular location.Please read the link. The solutions are within the quantum mechanic postulates after all.
There is no relativistic boundary condition because there are no orbits, only probability distributions.
Thus the solutions do not have a singularity at r=0, and in general there is a small probability of finding the electron at the origin, if the quantum numbers allow for an interaction, as with electron capture in nuclei. For the hydrogen atom there is not enough energy for a neutron to appear.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I am a tad bit worried about the GSU links because they seem to be based on an assumption of non-relativity, but that is exactly what I am worried about
$endgroup$
– Paul Young
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
But the same solutions as far as energy levels etc come out of solving the hydrogen atom with the Dirac equation, which is relativistic. quantummechanics.ucsd.edu/ph130a/130_notes/node501.html . This is due to the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics, where the constraints and the postulates are the ones determning the solutions. There is no effect of "nearing r=0" in the probability distributions in either case.
$endgroup$
– anna v
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
I don't understand the Dirac equation, but it is sounding from your answer and from Prof Barlow that since the $r=0$ boundary condition does not derive from anything that has to do with the equation, there isn't that much to worry about other than the small energy correction which should be on a "volume" scale
$endgroup$
– Paul Young
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
the link I give above says "This result gives the same answer as our non-relativistic calculation to order a^4 but is also correct to higher order. It is an exact solution to the quantum mechanics problem posed but does not include the effects of field theory, such as the Lamb shift and the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron. "
$endgroup$
– anna v
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
challenging looking link, but I see what I can do with it
$endgroup$
– Paul Young
7 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The boundary conditions that pick up the hydrogen wave functions are the "constraints" placed on the wave function solutions. Remember that the observable is the probability distribution from the $Ψ^*Ψ$, not a particular location.Please read the link. The solutions are within the quantum mechanic postulates after all.
There is no relativistic boundary condition because there are no orbits, only probability distributions.
Thus the solutions do not have a singularity at r=0, and in general there is a small probability of finding the electron at the origin, if the quantum numbers allow for an interaction, as with electron capture in nuclei. For the hydrogen atom there is not enough energy for a neutron to appear.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I am a tad bit worried about the GSU links because they seem to be based on an assumption of non-relativity, but that is exactly what I am worried about
$endgroup$
– Paul Young
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
But the same solutions as far as energy levels etc come out of solving the hydrogen atom with the Dirac equation, which is relativistic. quantummechanics.ucsd.edu/ph130a/130_notes/node501.html . This is due to the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics, where the constraints and the postulates are the ones determning the solutions. There is no effect of "nearing r=0" in the probability distributions in either case.
$endgroup$
– anna v
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
I don't understand the Dirac equation, but it is sounding from your answer and from Prof Barlow that since the $r=0$ boundary condition does not derive from anything that has to do with the equation, there isn't that much to worry about other than the small energy correction which should be on a "volume" scale
$endgroup$
– Paul Young
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
the link I give above says "This result gives the same answer as our non-relativistic calculation to order a^4 but is also correct to higher order. It is an exact solution to the quantum mechanics problem posed but does not include the effects of field theory, such as the Lamb shift and the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron. "
$endgroup$
– anna v
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
challenging looking link, but I see what I can do with it
$endgroup$
– Paul Young
7 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The boundary conditions that pick up the hydrogen wave functions are the "constraints" placed on the wave function solutions. Remember that the observable is the probability distribution from the $Ψ^*Ψ$, not a particular location.Please read the link. The solutions are within the quantum mechanic postulates after all.
There is no relativistic boundary condition because there are no orbits, only probability distributions.
Thus the solutions do not have a singularity at r=0, and in general there is a small probability of finding the electron at the origin, if the quantum numbers allow for an interaction, as with electron capture in nuclei. For the hydrogen atom there is not enough energy for a neutron to appear.
$endgroup$
The boundary conditions that pick up the hydrogen wave functions are the "constraints" placed on the wave function solutions. Remember that the observable is the probability distribution from the $Ψ^*Ψ$, not a particular location.Please read the link. The solutions are within the quantum mechanic postulates after all.
There is no relativistic boundary condition because there are no orbits, only probability distributions.
Thus the solutions do not have a singularity at r=0, and in general there is a small probability of finding the electron at the origin, if the quantum numbers allow for an interaction, as with electron capture in nuclei. For the hydrogen atom there is not enough energy for a neutron to appear.
edited 9 hours ago
answered 9 hours ago
anna vanna v
164k8156463
164k8156463
$begingroup$
I am a tad bit worried about the GSU links because they seem to be based on an assumption of non-relativity, but that is exactly what I am worried about
$endgroup$
– Paul Young
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
But the same solutions as far as energy levels etc come out of solving the hydrogen atom with the Dirac equation, which is relativistic. quantummechanics.ucsd.edu/ph130a/130_notes/node501.html . This is due to the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics, where the constraints and the postulates are the ones determning the solutions. There is no effect of "nearing r=0" in the probability distributions in either case.
$endgroup$
– anna v
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
I don't understand the Dirac equation, but it is sounding from your answer and from Prof Barlow that since the $r=0$ boundary condition does not derive from anything that has to do with the equation, there isn't that much to worry about other than the small energy correction which should be on a "volume" scale
$endgroup$
– Paul Young
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
the link I give above says "This result gives the same answer as our non-relativistic calculation to order a^4 but is also correct to higher order. It is an exact solution to the quantum mechanics problem posed but does not include the effects of field theory, such as the Lamb shift and the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron. "
$endgroup$
– anna v
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
challenging looking link, but I see what I can do with it
$endgroup$
– Paul Young
7 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I am a tad bit worried about the GSU links because they seem to be based on an assumption of non-relativity, but that is exactly what I am worried about
$endgroup$
– Paul Young
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
But the same solutions as far as energy levels etc come out of solving the hydrogen atom with the Dirac equation, which is relativistic. quantummechanics.ucsd.edu/ph130a/130_notes/node501.html . This is due to the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics, where the constraints and the postulates are the ones determning the solutions. There is no effect of "nearing r=0" in the probability distributions in either case.
$endgroup$
– anna v
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
I don't understand the Dirac equation, but it is sounding from your answer and from Prof Barlow that since the $r=0$ boundary condition does not derive from anything that has to do with the equation, there isn't that much to worry about other than the small energy correction which should be on a "volume" scale
$endgroup$
– Paul Young
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
the link I give above says "This result gives the same answer as our non-relativistic calculation to order a^4 but is also correct to higher order. It is an exact solution to the quantum mechanics problem posed but does not include the effects of field theory, such as the Lamb shift and the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron. "
$endgroup$
– anna v
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
challenging looking link, but I see what I can do with it
$endgroup$
– Paul Young
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
I am a tad bit worried about the GSU links because they seem to be based on an assumption of non-relativity, but that is exactly what I am worried about
$endgroup$
– Paul Young
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
I am a tad bit worried about the GSU links because they seem to be based on an assumption of non-relativity, but that is exactly what I am worried about
$endgroup$
– Paul Young
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
But the same solutions as far as energy levels etc come out of solving the hydrogen atom with the Dirac equation, which is relativistic. quantummechanics.ucsd.edu/ph130a/130_notes/node501.html . This is due to the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics, where the constraints and the postulates are the ones determning the solutions. There is no effect of "nearing r=0" in the probability distributions in either case.
$endgroup$
– anna v
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
But the same solutions as far as energy levels etc come out of solving the hydrogen atom with the Dirac equation, which is relativistic. quantummechanics.ucsd.edu/ph130a/130_notes/node501.html . This is due to the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics, where the constraints and the postulates are the ones determning the solutions. There is no effect of "nearing r=0" in the probability distributions in either case.
$endgroup$
– anna v
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
I don't understand the Dirac equation, but it is sounding from your answer and from Prof Barlow that since the $r=0$ boundary condition does not derive from anything that has to do with the equation, there isn't that much to worry about other than the small energy correction which should be on a "volume" scale
$endgroup$
– Paul Young
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
I don't understand the Dirac equation, but it is sounding from your answer and from Prof Barlow that since the $r=0$ boundary condition does not derive from anything that has to do with the equation, there isn't that much to worry about other than the small energy correction which should be on a "volume" scale
$endgroup$
– Paul Young
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
the link I give above says "This result gives the same answer as our non-relativistic calculation to order a^4 but is also correct to higher order. It is an exact solution to the quantum mechanics problem posed but does not include the effects of field theory, such as the Lamb shift and the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron. "
$endgroup$
– anna v
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
the link I give above says "This result gives the same answer as our non-relativistic calculation to order a^4 but is also correct to higher order. It is an exact solution to the quantum mechanics problem posed but does not include the effects of field theory, such as the Lamb shift and the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron. "
$endgroup$
– anna v
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
challenging looking link, but I see what I can do with it
$endgroup$
– Paul Young
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
challenging looking link, but I see what I can do with it
$endgroup$
– Paul Young
7 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The boundary condition at r=0 is that the wave function should be finite. The Schrödinger equation for hydrogen UC atoms and likely all atoms has solutions with negative $cal l$, which are rejected because they diverge at r=0. See for example Schiff's textbook on quantum mechanics.
As for relativistic effects, you may want to compare the hydrogen energy expressions for Dirac, better, Klein-Gordon - no spin, and Schrödinger. Check out another great text, Itzykson and Zuber, for these .
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The boundary condition at r=0 is that the wave function should be finite. The Schrödinger equation for hydrogen UC atoms and likely all atoms has solutions with negative $cal l$, which are rejected because they diverge at r=0. See for example Schiff's textbook on quantum mechanics.
As for relativistic effects, you may want to compare the hydrogen energy expressions for Dirac, better, Klein-Gordon - no spin, and Schrödinger. Check out another great text, Itzykson and Zuber, for these .
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The boundary condition at r=0 is that the wave function should be finite. The Schrödinger equation for hydrogen UC atoms and likely all atoms has solutions with negative $cal l$, which are rejected because they diverge at r=0. See for example Schiff's textbook on quantum mechanics.
As for relativistic effects, you may want to compare the hydrogen energy expressions for Dirac, better, Klein-Gordon - no spin, and Schrödinger. Check out another great text, Itzykson and Zuber, for these .
$endgroup$
The boundary condition at r=0 is that the wave function should be finite. The Schrödinger equation for hydrogen UC atoms and likely all atoms has solutions with negative $cal l$, which are rejected because they diverge at r=0. See for example Schiff's textbook on quantum mechanics.
As for relativistic effects, you may want to compare the hydrogen energy expressions for Dirac, better, Klein-Gordon - no spin, and Schrödinger. Check out another great text, Itzykson and Zuber, for these .
edited 7 hours ago
answered 7 hours ago
my2ctsmy2cts
6,7152722
6,7152722
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Good question. Your claim that
near the proton the electron's kinetic energy will be relativistic
is not as straightforward as it might seen. The electron's kinetic energy $langle hatT rangle = langle hatp^2 rangle / (2m)$ is a nonlocal quantity that can be equivalently expressed as either of the two integrals
$$langle hatT rangle = frac12m int d^3x psi^*(x) left(-hbar^2 nabla^2 right) psi(x) = frac12m int d^3x |hbar, bf nabla psi(x)|^2.$$
So the electron's kinetic energy "at" a particular location is not well-defined; it could be the value of either of the two integrands above at that point (or, indeed, of any other integrand that integrates to the same value over all of space).
The latter expression is the more natural one to use, though, because at least it's positive-semidefinite. We still have the problem that $hbar |nabla psi(0)|^2/(2m)$ is a "kinetic energy density" (whatever that is) rather than an actual kinetic energy, so we can't speak of how relativistic the electron is "at" the nucleus. (We could integrate over the empirical size of the nucleus, but I don't think that's really what your question is getting at - you're not asking about when the electron is literally inside the nucleus, but when it's close enough to the potential center that it's intuitively moving very quickly.)
But none of this really matters - the point is that since the integrand is positive-definite, the contribution to the kinetic energy over any particular region is always less than (or equal to) the total kinetic energy over every region. So to meaningfully check whether relativistic effects need to be taken into account, you need to calculate the total kinetic energy over all of space. This turns out to be $hbar^2/(2m a^2) = m e^4/(2 hbar^2) = (alpha^2 /2) m c^2$, where $alpha$ is the fine-structure constant. Relativistic effects are negligible if the kinetic energy is much less than the electron's rest energy, which corresponds to the condition that $alpha^2/2 = 1/37538 ll 1$, which, reassuringly, is true.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Good question. Your claim that
near the proton the electron's kinetic energy will be relativistic
is not as straightforward as it might seen. The electron's kinetic energy $langle hatT rangle = langle hatp^2 rangle / (2m)$ is a nonlocal quantity that can be equivalently expressed as either of the two integrals
$$langle hatT rangle = frac12m int d^3x psi^*(x) left(-hbar^2 nabla^2 right) psi(x) = frac12m int d^3x |hbar, bf nabla psi(x)|^2.$$
So the electron's kinetic energy "at" a particular location is not well-defined; it could be the value of either of the two integrands above at that point (or, indeed, of any other integrand that integrates to the same value over all of space).
The latter expression is the more natural one to use, though, because at least it's positive-semidefinite. We still have the problem that $hbar |nabla psi(0)|^2/(2m)$ is a "kinetic energy density" (whatever that is) rather than an actual kinetic energy, so we can't speak of how relativistic the electron is "at" the nucleus. (We could integrate over the empirical size of the nucleus, but I don't think that's really what your question is getting at - you're not asking about when the electron is literally inside the nucleus, but when it's close enough to the potential center that it's intuitively moving very quickly.)
But none of this really matters - the point is that since the integrand is positive-definite, the contribution to the kinetic energy over any particular region is always less than (or equal to) the total kinetic energy over every region. So to meaningfully check whether relativistic effects need to be taken into account, you need to calculate the total kinetic energy over all of space. This turns out to be $hbar^2/(2m a^2) = m e^4/(2 hbar^2) = (alpha^2 /2) m c^2$, where $alpha$ is the fine-structure constant. Relativistic effects are negligible if the kinetic energy is much less than the electron's rest energy, which corresponds to the condition that $alpha^2/2 = 1/37538 ll 1$, which, reassuringly, is true.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Good question. Your claim that
near the proton the electron's kinetic energy will be relativistic
is not as straightforward as it might seen. The electron's kinetic energy $langle hatT rangle = langle hatp^2 rangle / (2m)$ is a nonlocal quantity that can be equivalently expressed as either of the two integrals
$$langle hatT rangle = frac12m int d^3x psi^*(x) left(-hbar^2 nabla^2 right) psi(x) = frac12m int d^3x |hbar, bf nabla psi(x)|^2.$$
So the electron's kinetic energy "at" a particular location is not well-defined; it could be the value of either of the two integrands above at that point (or, indeed, of any other integrand that integrates to the same value over all of space).
The latter expression is the more natural one to use, though, because at least it's positive-semidefinite. We still have the problem that $hbar |nabla psi(0)|^2/(2m)$ is a "kinetic energy density" (whatever that is) rather than an actual kinetic energy, so we can't speak of how relativistic the electron is "at" the nucleus. (We could integrate over the empirical size of the nucleus, but I don't think that's really what your question is getting at - you're not asking about when the electron is literally inside the nucleus, but when it's close enough to the potential center that it's intuitively moving very quickly.)
But none of this really matters - the point is that since the integrand is positive-definite, the contribution to the kinetic energy over any particular region is always less than (or equal to) the total kinetic energy over every region. So to meaningfully check whether relativistic effects need to be taken into account, you need to calculate the total kinetic energy over all of space. This turns out to be $hbar^2/(2m a^2) = m e^4/(2 hbar^2) = (alpha^2 /2) m c^2$, where $alpha$ is the fine-structure constant. Relativistic effects are negligible if the kinetic energy is much less than the electron's rest energy, which corresponds to the condition that $alpha^2/2 = 1/37538 ll 1$, which, reassuringly, is true.
$endgroup$
Good question. Your claim that
near the proton the electron's kinetic energy will be relativistic
is not as straightforward as it might seen. The electron's kinetic energy $langle hatT rangle = langle hatp^2 rangle / (2m)$ is a nonlocal quantity that can be equivalently expressed as either of the two integrals
$$langle hatT rangle = frac12m int d^3x psi^*(x) left(-hbar^2 nabla^2 right) psi(x) = frac12m int d^3x |hbar, bf nabla psi(x)|^2.$$
So the electron's kinetic energy "at" a particular location is not well-defined; it could be the value of either of the two integrands above at that point (or, indeed, of any other integrand that integrates to the same value over all of space).
The latter expression is the more natural one to use, though, because at least it's positive-semidefinite. We still have the problem that $hbar |nabla psi(0)|^2/(2m)$ is a "kinetic energy density" (whatever that is) rather than an actual kinetic energy, so we can't speak of how relativistic the electron is "at" the nucleus. (We could integrate over the empirical size of the nucleus, but I don't think that's really what your question is getting at - you're not asking about when the electron is literally inside the nucleus, but when it's close enough to the potential center that it's intuitively moving very quickly.)
But none of this really matters - the point is that since the integrand is positive-definite, the contribution to the kinetic energy over any particular region is always less than (or equal to) the total kinetic energy over every region. So to meaningfully check whether relativistic effects need to be taken into account, you need to calculate the total kinetic energy over all of space. This turns out to be $hbar^2/(2m a^2) = m e^4/(2 hbar^2) = (alpha^2 /2) m c^2$, where $alpha$ is the fine-structure constant. Relativistic effects are negligible if the kinetic energy is much less than the electron's rest energy, which corresponds to the condition that $alpha^2/2 = 1/37538 ll 1$, which, reassuringly, is true.
answered 4 hours ago
tparkertparker
24.3k151132
24.3k151132
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Physics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f483702%2fwhy-does-the-schr%25c3%25b6dinger-equation-work-so-well-for-the-hydrogen-atom-despite-the%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
$begingroup$
Sometimes boundary conditions aren't important. An important example is when dealing with solid state physics, it makes essentially do difference to the bulk solution what boundary condition you use at the surface of a macroscopic object. People tend to use periodic boundary conditions (definitely unphysical!) in this case.
$endgroup$
– jacob1729
9 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
My guess is that in this case, the $r^2$ in the spherical volume element tells you that there is no likelihood to find the electron at precisely $r=0$, so the exact BC you apply there is largely irrelevant. In fact, the correct one would not be what you suggest either I think, as you would need to account for the fact the potential inside the nucleus is not $1/r$.
$endgroup$
– jacob1729
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
@jacob1729 - two good points you just made .. 1) as r goes to zero the radial component can only diverge slowly enough to keep the wavefunction normalizable ... and 2) I haven't actually done the math to determine if the electron goes relativistic before it gets so close to the proton that the proton is no longer approximated as a point particle
$endgroup$
– Paul Young
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
Having thought about it, the electron Compton wavelength is 2.4pm which is much larger than the proton size (~fm) so I think you're right that relativistic effects are more important. I think the relevant criterion would be the probability to find a 1s electron in a sphere of radius $lambda_c$.
$endgroup$
– jacob1729
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
so, we now have that it cannot diverge any more quickly than $1/r$ at the nucleus, even before we worry about the equation ...
$endgroup$
– Paul Young
9 hours ago