Hydrogen Radial Equation: Recursion Relation & Laguerre Polynomials

jayqubee
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
I'm in the first of 3 courses in quantum mechanics, and we just started chapter 4 of Griffiths. He goes into great detail in most of the solution of the radial equation, except for one part: translating the recursion relation into a form that matches the definition of the Laguerre polynomials. Now I understand the technique that gets all the way to that point, but I have yet to find any derivation that actually shows how that recursion relation is made to match the right form. I spent a while on it but I can't get it quite right. Can anyone show, or point me to a derivation that includes this detail? Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
And what definition of Laguerre's polynomials do you use ?
 
The recursion relation i have is:

cj+1= \frac{j+L+1-n}{(j+1)(j+2L+2)}cj

for principle quantum number n, and orbital quantum number L, where the coefficients terminate after
jmax = n - L - 1

The definition I'm trying to match is the one in Arfken & Weber:

L^{k}_{N} = \sum^{N}_{j=0}\frac{(-1)^j(N + k)!}{j!(N-j)!(k+j)!}x^j

N = jmax = n - L - 1

k = 2L + 1
 
A number of documents on the web follow Griffiths' treatment, and try to add some explanation, especially at this point. The best one I've found is here.

The problem, as dextercioby says, lies in how you define the Laguerre polynomials. There are three ways you can do it: the DE, the recursion relation, and Rodrigues' formula (which is what Griffiths uses in Eqs. 4.87 and 4.88). Any one of these can be tied to the radial wavefunction for the hydrogen atom. The third is the least useful. :frown: and very difficult to derive from the others. The ref I gave above defines them via the DE and derives the recursion relation from that.
 
Wow it is so much easier to manipulate the \upsilon(\rho) equation into the associated Laguerre ODE than to use the recursion relation. Thanks for your help!
 
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...
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
Is it possible, and fruitful, to use certain conceptual and technical tools from effective field theory (coarse-graining/integrating-out, power-counting, matching, RG) to think about the relationship between the fundamental (quantum) and the emergent (classical), both to account for the quasi-autonomy of the classical level and to quantify residual quantum corrections? By “emergent,” I mean the following: after integrating out fast/irrelevant quantum degrees of freedom (high-energy modes...

Similar threads

Back
Top