- #1

LeonhardEuler

Gold Member

- 859

- 1

You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

- Thread starter LeonhardEuler
- Start date

- #1

LeonhardEuler

Gold Member

- 859

- 1

- #2

Hurkyl

Staff Emeritus

Science Advisor

Gold Member

- 14,950

- 19

This equation is symmetric in interchanging x and y.

What can you say about the solutions?

- #3

LeonhardEuler

Gold Member

- 859

- 1

That for any solution (a,b), there is a solution (b,a). But in the case of the hydrogen atom, you would expect that symetry would imply that the value of [itex]\Psi[/itex] would be the same at all points at the same distance, which isn't the case. I'm sorry, I don't see the connection yet.

Last edited:

- #4

- 35,977

- 4,683

LeonhardEuler said:I was thinking back to my QM class last semester. My teacher derived what the orbitals of the hydrogen atom should look like. I just realized something a little strange about the result that it did not occur to me at the time to ask: How is it that orbitals resulted from a spherically symetric problem which were not themselves sherically symetric?

But is this really that strange? Consider the classical central force problem. You can have, as one solution, an elliptical orbit with the source of the central force at one of the focus of the ellipse. This is not symmetric about that central force.

Zz.

- #5

LeonhardEuler

Gold Member

- 859

- 1

- #6

- 35,977

- 4,683

LeonhardEuler said:

Er..no. It's a POSSIBLE SOLUTION. It means that just because the problem is symmetric, it doesn't mean ALL possible "stationary" solutions have to be.

Zz.

- #7

LeonhardEuler

Gold Member

- 859

- 1

- #8

- 35,977

- 4,683

LeonhardEuler said:

Why not? Let the principle quantum number be n=100. How many l,m solutions can support that in the orbital part of the wavefuntion?

Zz.

- #9

LeonhardEuler

Gold Member

- 859

- 1

A lot, although I forget how to calculate exactly how many. But suppose n=3. You would still not expect the choice of the polar axis to influence the solution for any particular value of n because it is just a mathematical abstraction chosen arbitrarily. Are there possible solutions for n=3 with the lobes pointing in any direction? (The reason I am restricting it to n=3 is because from what I remember, an increase in n means an increase in energy, so an n=100 orbital could not be the same as an n=3 orbital, and you would expect that for every energy, the solutions should be symetric. Am I remembering that correctly? Because if I'm not then I see how my question is answered.)

Last edited:

- #10

reilly

Science Advisor

- 1,077

- 1

The idea is, sort of like: a normal 3D vector maps into another 3D vector under rotations, and keeps its norm. Angular mometum states have the property that the value of L**2 or l*(1+1) is preserved under rotations, and for a given l, the new eigenstate is a superposition of all the Lz states, all of which are degenerate. (Technically, the states for a given l form a finite representation of the rotation group. Books on angular momentum, and, indeed, group theory talk a lot about these matters.)

Regards,

Reilly Atkinson

- #11

- 922

- 29

Eisberg Resnik

after figure 7.9.

You are right, in order to observe this z direction explicitly, one would have to provide an experimental set up which unavoidably disturbs the simetry of the potential (Hamiltonian). The degeneracy in energy between spherical and not spherical eigenstates helps maintaining these "oriented" states of the free atom hidden.

Best Regards

DaTario

Share: