How can potentials be well-defined without violating U.P.?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter TomServo
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Potentials Uncertainty
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of potentials in quantum mechanics, specifically how potentials like the Coulomb potential can be well-defined without violating the uncertainty principle (U.P.). Participants explore the implications of treating the nucleus of an atom as stationary and the approximations involved in this treatment, with a focus on the hydrogen atom.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions how potentials can be well-defined in the context of the uncertainty principle, particularly regarding the stationary treatment of the nucleus in the hydrogen atom.
  • Another participant suggests that treating the nucleus as stationary is merely an approximation, and a more accurate model involves the motion of a reduced mass around a stationary center of mass, which results in slightly lower energy levels.
  • A participant reiterates that using a classical orbital mechanics approach seems to imply a well-defined position and momentum, raising concerns about the implications for the uncertainty principle.
  • It is noted that starting with the full multiparticle Hamiltonian allows for the approximation of the heavy particle being stationary.
  • One participant emphasizes that the well-defined position of the nucleus is based on the assumption of it being stationary, reiterating the approximation nature of this treatment.
  • A participant distinguishes between the theoretical implications of the uncertainty principle and practical limitations, arguing that while the potential can be well-defined, there are constraints such as the mass and size of the nucleus and environmental effects.
  • Another participant points out that in quantum mechanics, the Coulomb potential is treated as an operator, and while a classical treatment of the nucleus is often a good approximation, it is not a requirement.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the implications of treating the nucleus as stationary, with some arguing it is a valid approximation while others raise concerns about the consequences for the uncertainty principle. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the extent to which these approximations hold true in various contexts.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations related to the assumptions made in approximating the nucleus as stationary, the dependence on the definitions of mass and size, and the influence of external factors on atomic behavior.

TomServo
Messages
281
Reaction score
9
Tried searching for equivalent question but couldn't find it.

Presumably, a potential (like a Coulomb one) comes from another particle, which has its own momentum/position uncertainty, but in the Schroedinger equation the potential is well-defined either in terms of some coordinate system or its relation to the particle that the equation is for.

So how does this work? How do we talk about the hydrogen atom as if the nucleus were stationary without violating the uncertainty principle?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Treating the nucleus as stationary is just an approximation. A more accurate calculation uses the motion of a reduced mass around a stationary center of mass. This gives slightly lower energy levels.
 
Khashishi said:
Treating the nucleus as stationary is just an approximation. A more accurate calculation uses the motion of a reduced mass around a stationary center of mass. This gives slightly lower energy levels.
Yeah I get that, but using a classical orbital mechanics approach still sounds like we're well-defining position and momentum.
 
It's just an approximation. The position of the nucleus is well defined because we assume that it is stationary.
 
You are confusing two things. One is whether the uncertainty principle prevents you from having an arbitrarily well-defined potential. It does not. In the case of the Coulomb potential, adding mass to the central charge until you are within your tolerances will do the trick. The other is whether there is a practical limitation. Sure - for many reasons. You can't make a nucleus arbitrarily heavy. You can't make it arbitrarily small, so the point charge approximation has limits. There are environmental effects - the atom may be in a molecule, or there may be stray external electromagnetic fields, etc.
 
In QM, the Coulomb potential of a nucleus is an operator, just like the nuclear position itself is represented by an operator.
As others already pointed out, it is often a good approximation to treat the nucleus classically and this is often done in praxis. However, this is only an approximation and nobody forces you to apply it.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
9K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K