Another question on Schrodinger Equation

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The claim that the Schrödinger equation (SE) provides no rational basis for spin, the Pauli Exclusion Principle, or Hund's Rule is incorrect. The symmetrization postulate operates independently of the SE, and spin originates from the Galilei group, which can be used to derive the SE through the Wigner and Bargmann theorem. Additionally, Hund's rules can be derived by fully solving the SE for arbitrary atoms, thus affirming the relevance of the SE in quantum mechanics.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of the Schrödinger equation in quantum mechanics
  • Familiarity with the symmetrization postulate
  • Knowledge of the Galilei group and its implications
  • Basic concepts of atomic structure and the periodic table
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation of the Schrödinger equation from the Galilei group
  • Explore the implications of the symmetrization postulate in quantum mechanics
  • Research the Wigner and Bargmann theorem and its applications
  • Investigate the complete solutions of the Schrödinger equation for various atomic structures
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, quantum mechanics students, and researchers interested in the foundational principles of quantum theory and atomic behavior.

Rade
I have read the following claim (where is not important):

...the Schrödinger equation provides no rational basis for the phenomenon of spin, the Pauli Exclusion Principle, or Hund's Rule...


Is such a claim true ? If so, what does it matter ?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The symmetrization postulate is a postulate just like the SE (when the axioms are presented in the Schrödinger picture),
so no interference, they are completely independent. The spin comes from the Galilei group;
well, from the Galilei group one can derive the SE using the
theorem of Wigner and Bargmann. The Hund's rules can be derived if one was able to fully solve the SE for an arbitrary
atom, hence for all atoms of the elements in the PT.

Oh, and it's Schrödinger or Schroedinger (in the unfortunate case you can't put the Umlaut), not Schrödinger.

So that claim is wrong.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
2K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
3K