Geometry of the atomic structure

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the geometric modeling of atomic structures, particularly the use of spherical coordinates in solving the Schrödinger equations for systems with azimuthal symmetry. Participants explore the validity of these geometric assumptions and their implications in quantum mechanics and electrostatics.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Ryan questions the accuracy of using spherical coordinates for the Schrödinger equations, linking it to Bohr's model of the hydrogen atom and the extensive testing of quantum mechanics.
  • Zz challenges Ryan to consider how spherical coordinates are chosen in classical electromagnetism for central, spherically symmetric potentials, suggesting a parallel to quantum mechanics.
  • Another participant notes the existence of images of atoms from scanning tunneling microscopes, implying experimental support for the geometric model.
  • A participant asserts that the radial nature of the electric field, which is experimentally verified, supports the assumption of spherical geometry for the hydrogen atom.
  • One participant mentions that while spherical coordinates are a common choice for solving the Schrödinger equation for a Coulomb potential, other coordinate systems, such as parabolic coordinates, can also be used.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the validity and necessity of spherical coordinates in modeling atomic structures. There is no consensus on whether the geometric assumptions are definitively accurate, as various perspectives and alternative approaches are presented.

Contextual Notes

The discussion touches on the limitations of geometric models in quantum mechanics and classical physics, including the dependence on specific assumptions and the potential for alternative coordinate systems.

res3210
Messages
47
Reaction score
0
Hey guys,

I was looking at both the time-dependent and time-independent Schrödinger equations, and I notice that we often choose to solve these in spherical coordinates. I understand that we do this because they are convenient for problems with azimuthal symmetry. However, how do we know that this geometric model is actually accurate? Is it because Bohr made the assumption that the hydrogen atom can be modeled as a spherical system? I understand that QM has been tested extensively and we have seen that it is a very accurate model, is it because of this that we assume that our geometric assumptions are correct?

Thanks for the help and information in advance,

Ryan
 
Physics news on Phys.org
res3210 said:
Hey guys,

I was looking at both the time-dependent and time-independent Schrödinger equations, and I notice that we often choose to solve these in spherical coordinates. I understand that we do this because they are convenient for problems with azimuthal symmetry. However, how do we know that this geometric model is actually accurate? Is it because Bohr made the assumption that the hydrogen atom can be modeled as a spherical system? I understand that QM has been tested extensively and we have seen that it is a very accurate model, is it because of this that we assume that our geometric assumptions are correct?

Thanks for the help and information in advance,

Ryan

Hum... forget about QM. When you were doing your E&M problem, and you were given a central, spherically symmetric potential or charge distribution, how did you know that choosing spherical coordinate was the best choice?

Once you have answered that, look at the potential term in the Schrödinger equation for the H atom, and compare.

Zz.
 
res3210 said:
Hey guys,

I was looking at both the time-dependent and time-independent Schrödinger equations, and I notice that we often choose to solve these in spherical coordinates. I understand that we do this because they are convenient for problems with azimuthal symmetry. However, how do we know that this geometric model is actually accurate? Is it because Bohr made the assumption that the hydrogen atom can be modeled as a spherical system? I understand that QM has been tested extensively and we have seen that it is a very accurate model, is it because of this that we assume that our geometric assumptions are correct?

Thanks for the help and information in advance,

Ryan



There are images of atoms taken by scanning tunneling microscopes. They are easy to find online.
 
Of course, it is because the electric field points radially outward, which is experimentally verified. So I suppose we assume the same thing for H. If we see that it behaves electrically equivalent to an electrically charged sphere, then that should lead us to the spherical geometry conclusion.
 
We write down the Schrödinger equation for a Coulomb potential, V = Ze2/r. At that point the physical assumptions are done with, and we can solve that equation any way we like. Spherical coordinates are an obvious choice but not the only one. In fact the hydrogen atom can be solved in parabolic coordinates also. See "www.ejournal.unam.mx/rmf/no546/RMF005400609.pdf‎" . Also here.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
970
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K