Finding the Hamiltonian for the Be Atom without Nuclear Terms

  • Thread starter Thread starter rovert
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Atom Hamiltonian
rovert
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
I have a problem that uses the QM Hamiltonian for the berylium atom, but I am having trouble finding this Hamiltonian using the Born-Oppenheimer approximation (leaving out the nuclear-nucler and nucler-electron terms).
Any know how to get this?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It's not difficult. How many electrons does this atom have ? Can you treat the nucleus as a point particle charge ? Are you requires to use the spins of the electrons?

Daniel.

P.S. You can't leave out the nuclear-electron interaction terms.
 
Be has 4 electrons. Yes, they are assumed point charges. Electron spin should be included. Does it start with H=(-ћ2/2m)∑…? That is where I thought I should start, but am stuck after that. I have never seen a Hamiltonian developed for a many-electron atom.
 
You just have to add all possible terms: KE for the 4 electrons, KE for the nucleus, then Coulomb interaction for the 4 electrons among each other , Coulomb interaction for the 4 electrons with the nucleus and finally spin terms: spin-orbit interaction for the electrons and spin-spin interactions for the electrons, that is, of course, if you neglect nuclear spin.

Daniel.
 
Thanks for your help. I think I've got it now. Since I can make the Born-Oppenheimer approximation, I can leave KE for the nucleus out (basically ignore the nucleus all together) which I know is a HUGE assumption to make, but that is what the problem instructs.
 
Thread 'Need help understanding this figure on energy levels'
This figure is from "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" by Griffiths (3rd edition). It is available to download. It is from page 142. I am hoping the usual people on this site will give me a hand understanding what is going on in the figure. After the equation (4.50) it says "It is customary to introduce the principal quantum number, ##n##, which simply orders the allowed energies, starting with 1 for the ground state. (see the figure)" I still don't understand the figure :( Here is...
Thread 'Understanding how to "tack on" the time wiggle factor'
The last problem I posted on QM made it into advanced homework help, that is why I am putting it here. I am sorry for any hassle imposed on the moderators by myself. Part (a) is quite easy. We get $$\sigma_1 = 2\lambda, \mathbf{v}_1 = \begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ 0 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_2 = \lambda, \mathbf{v}_2 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_3 = -\lambda, \mathbf{v}_3 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ -1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} $$ There are two ways...
Back
Top