Hydrogen Degeneracy: Qualitative Explanation

Allday
Messages
164
Reaction score
1
The hydrogen energy levels (when only considering the coulomb field of an infinitely massive proton - or when using the reduced mass for the electron) only depend on the principle quantum number n. Can someone give me a qualitative argument why the orbital angular momentum quantum number l doesn't come into play here?

related questions:

do hydrogen like atoms (ionized to the point of having only one electron but containing more than one proton) break this degeneracy between the different orbital angular momentum states?

do atoms with the same number of protons and electrons, but with one electron outside of completely full shells break this degeneracy?

gonna read some and see if i can find the answer
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
It turns out the 1/r nature of the coulomb potential is the reason why all the states with the same n and different l have the same energy. The degeneracy is called accidental to differentiate it from the essential degeneracy of the 2l+1 states with the same l but different m. This essential degeneracy is due to the rotational invariance of any central potential.

This leads me to believe that the atoms with one electron maintain the degeneracy, while those with full shells + 1 don't because the electron shielding will alter the 1/r potential.
 
Last edited:
The "accidental" degeneracy is due to a conserved quantity corresponding to a symmetry of the system via quantum Noether theorem.

See https://faculty.washington.edu/seattle/physics324/Lenz.pdf for details.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
thanks for the link to the paper dextercioby. I remember learning about that Lenz vector when I was doing classical mechanics orbits. Interesting to see its quantum equivalent in play. I think it would be nice if they included a discussion of this in more of the standard quantum books.
 
I've seen this issue treated in some lecture notes before, but i can't remember any textbook author discussing it.
 
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