Hamiltonian For Two-Particle System

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around deriving the time-independent Schrödinger equation for a two-particle system, specifically focusing on the Hamiltonian formulation. The participants are examining the mathematical expressions related to the Laplacians of the system's coordinates.

Discussion Character

  • Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants are analyzing the calculations of the Laplacians for the two-particle system, questioning the correctness of their derivations. There is an exploration of the application of the product rule and chain rule in the context of second derivatives.

Discussion Status

Some participants have provided guidance on the need to show detailed work for the calculations, while others have confirmed that certain initial expressions are correct. There is an ongoing examination of the steps involved in deriving the Laplacians, with no explicit consensus reached yet.

Contextual Notes

Participants are working under the constraints of homework rules that require them to show their work and reasoning without receiving direct solutions. There is an acknowledgment of potential errors in the calculations that need to be clarified.

McCoy13
Messages
71
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Show that the time-independent Schrödinger equation becomes
[tex]-\frac{h^{2}}{2(m_{1}+m_{2})}\nabla^{2}_{R}\psi-\frac{h^{2}}{2\mu}\nabla^{2}_{r}\psi+V(r)\psi = E\psi[/tex]

Homework Equations


[tex]-\frac{h^{2}}{2m_{1}}\nabla^{2}_{1}\psi-\frac{h^{2}}{2m_{2}}\nabla^{2}_{2}\psi+V(r)\psi = E\psi[/tex]

The Attempt at a Solution


[tex]\nabla^{2}_{1} = (\frac{\mu}{m_{2}})\nabla^{2}_{R}+\nabla^{2}_{r}[/tex]
[tex]\nabla^{2}_{2} = (\frac{\mu}{m_{1}})\nabla^{2}_{R}-\nabla^{2}_{r}[/tex]

Substituting into the Hamiltonian, I got
[tex]-\frac{h^{2}}{2(m_{1}+m_{2})}\nabla^{2}_{R}\psi-(\frac{h^{2}}{2})(\frac{m_{2}-m{1}}{m_{1}m_{2}})\nabla^{2}_{r}\psi+V(r)\psi = E\psi[/tex]

I think I must've calculated [tex]\nabla^{2}_{1} = (\frac{\mu}{m_{2}})\nabla^{2}_{R}+\nabla^{2}_{r}[/tex] and [tex]\nabla^{2}_{2} = (\frac{\mu}{m_{1}})\nabla^{2}_{R}-\nabla^{2}_{r}[/tex] incorrectly, but I can't for the life of me figure out why. I used chain rule to get [tex]\nabla_{R}[/tex] and [tex]\nabla_{r}[/tex] and then product rule to get the second derivatives. Since the derivatives of R and r with respect to r1 and r2 are simply constants, they don't contribute to the second derivative.

Thoughts?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You need to show us the work you did to calculate those new laplacians, so that we can guide you where you went wrong. But you are right about those laplacians being wrong, I just can't tell you where you went wrong without seeing the work.
 
I started with:
[tex]\nabla_{1} = \frac{\mu}{m_{2}}\nabla_{R}+\nabla_{r}[/tex]
[tex]\nabla_{2} = \frac{\mu}{m_{1}}\nabla_{R}-\nabla_{r}[/tex]

Then, for the second derivative (where I may be going wrong is that [tex]\nabla(\nabla) \neq \nabla^{2}[/tex]?) I used the product rule since [tex]\frac{\mu}{m_{2}}\nabla_{R}+\nabla_{r} = \frac{\partial R}{\partial r_{1}}\nabla_{R}+\frac{\partial r}{\partial r_{1}}\nabla_{r}[/tex] (that last partial should be partial of r with respect to r1, it's not showing up for some reason) and the same for [tex]\nabla_{2}[/tex]. Since [tex]\frac{\partial R}{\partial r_{1}}[/tex] is a constant and the same for partial r with respect to r1 (and the same again for r2) then those terms disappear and you are left with the equations I had in my original post.
 
Last edited:
The first two lines are correct. Not sure what you are doing in the following paragraph.

Since you know [tex]\nabla_1[/tex], you just square it to get [tex]\nabla_1^2[/tex]. Then it becomes:

[tex]\nabla_1^2 = \left(\frac{\mu}{m_{2}}\nabla_{R}+\nabla_{r}\right)^2[/tex]

You then just expand it like you would for (a+b)^2. Do the same for the 2nd gradient.
 
This is what I suspected. Thanks.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
3K