I Extended hamiltonian operator for the Hydrogen atom

PedroBittar
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
I am familiar with the usual solution of the hydrogen atom using the associated legendre functions and spherical harmonics, but my question is: is it possible to extend the hamiltonian of the hydrogen atom to naturally encompass half integer spin?
My guess is that spin only pops in naturally in relativistic quantum mechanics, but since my knowledge on the subject is limited I am not sure how to proceed with the argument and would appreciate some references with more complete discussions.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
PedroBittar said:
My guess is that spin only pops in naturally in relativistic quantum mechanics
Your guess hits the point. If you stay non-relativistic, electron spin never enters the Hamiltonian of a Hydrogen-like atom (there is a perturbation method to account for the effect of spin, but as you might know a perturbation is something you add into the original model, it's not something you start off from the beginning). In fact, the relativistic effect in atom is best described through Dirac equation. For a more detailed discussion you may try chapter 8 in "Modern Quantum Mechanics" 2nd edition by Sakurai and Napolitano.
 
  • Like
Likes PedroBittar and bhobba
PedroBittar said:
I am familiar with the usual solution of the hydrogen atom using the associated legendre functions and spherical harmonics, but my question is: is it possible to extend the hamiltonian of the hydrogen atom to naturally encompass half integer spin? [...]

Yes, it is possible to extend the Hamiltonian by the Levy-Leblond approach.

PedroBittar said:
[...] My guess is that spin only pops in naturally in relativistic quantum mechanics, but since my knowledge on the subject is limited I am not sure how to proceed with the argument and would appreciate some references with more complete discussions.

Your guess is wrong. Levy-Leblond's work is the subject of chapter 13 of Walter Greiner's "Quantum Mechanics. An Introduction", Springer Verlag.
Actually, Pauli's equation is the simplest Galilei-group invariant wave equation, just in the same vein as the Dirac one is the simplest Poincaré-group invariant group equation. There were/are two famous Ukrainian physicists, Fushchich and Nikitin who wrote a whole book on group-theoretical derivations of wave equations

upload_2017-3-19_23-43-37.png
 
dextercioby said:
Yes, it is possible to extend the Hamiltonian by the Levy-Leblond approach.
Your guess is wrong. Levy-Leblond's work is the subject of chapter 13 of Walter Greiner's "Quantum Mechanics. An Introduction", Springer Verlag.
Actually, Pauli's equation is the simplest Galilei-group invariant wave equation, just in the same vein as the Dirac one is the simplest Poincaré-group invariant group equation. There were/are two famous Ukrainian physicists, Fushchich and Nikitin who wrote a whole book on group-theoretical derivations of wave equations

View attachment 114767
That is very interesting, and makes a lot of sense since the pauli equation seems to be the nonrelativistic limit of dirac equation.
Thanks, I will definitely take a look on this group theory derivations.
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
Not an expert in QM. AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is quite different from the classical wave equation. The former is an equation for the dynamics of the state of a (quantum?) system, the latter is an equation for the dynamics of a (classical) degree of freedom. As a matter of fact, Schrödinger's equation is first order in time derivatives, while the classical wave equation is second order. But, AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is a wave equation; only its interpretation makes it non-classical...
I am looking at the Laughlin wave function and it contains the term $$\prod_{j<k}^{N}\left(z_j-z_k\right)^q$$ In Wikipedia the lower index on ##\Pi## is ##1\le i<j\le N## and there is no upper index. I'm not sure what either mean. For example would $$\prod_{j<k}^{N}\left(z_j-z_k\right)^q=\prod_{k=2}^{N}\left[\prod_{j=1}^{k-1}\left(z_j-z_k\right)^q\right]?$$ (It seems that ##k## cannot be 1 because there would be nothing to multiply in the second product). I'm not sure what else the...
Back
Top