I Lower energy levels with Dirac/Pauli theory than Schroedinger theory?

  • I
  • Thread starter Thread starter Juli
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Dirac Pauli
Juli
Messages
24
Reaction score
6
TL;DR Summary
Lower energy levels with dirac/pauli theory than Schroedinger theory
Why do the enery levels calculated with the Dirac/Pauli euqations always lie lower than the results calculated with the Schrödinger equation?
I assume it has to do something with relativistic effects and the changing masses because of this.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Please provide a specific example (or a reference to such an example)
 
hutchphd said:
Please provide a specific example (or a reference to such an example)
A specific example would be the hydrogen atom. I have linked a photo of what I mean.
Why are the corrected energys always lower? The relativistic parts are obviously taking up some energy and my question is where it goes. I don't think it's spin-orbin couling, since it just splits the levels up, some go higher, some lower. I think it's the kinetic and potential energy-terms. But why exactly? It probably has to do something with the relativistic mass, but aren't we using the rest mass in the Pauli-equation?

Screenshot 2025-01-17 160501.png
 
Juli said:
It probably has to do something with the relativistic mass, but aren't we using the rest mass

This effect should not be related to the relativistic mass. Relativistic mass is a deprecated concept that is no longer used to interpret special relativity, it is just a Lorentz factor in front of the mass.

Juli said:
A specific example would be the hydrogen atom. I have linked a photo of what I mean.
Why are the corrected energys always lower? The relativistic parts are obviously taking up some energy and my question is where it goes. I don't think it's spin-orbin couling, since it just splits the levels up, some go higher, some lower. I think it's the kinetic and potential energy-terms. But why exactly?

It is probably not true (as far as I know) that relativistic systems have lower energies than the non-relativistic ones. It is probably not even true for the hydrogen atom. As far as you have shown it is true for the first two levels of the hydrogen atom. In that case, yes it is due to the relativistic corrections to the kinetic energy as shown by the weakly relativistic calculation (at first order it's negative and larger than the other fine structure factors for the ground state and some of the first excited states).

Edit:

Juli said:
but aren't we using the rest mass in the Pauli-equation?

Also no idea what you mean by Pauli equation here, that's just Schrödinger's equation but with spin.
 
Last edited:
Juli said:
A specific example would be the hydrogen atom. I have linked a photo of what I mean.
Where does this photo come from? We need a reference.
 
  • Like
Likes Lord Jestocost
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 not sure if this falls under classical physics or quantum physics or somewhere else (so feel free to put it in the right section), but is there any micro state of the universe one can think of which if evolved under the current laws of nature, inevitably results in outcomes such as a table levitating? That example is just a random one I decided to choose but I'm really asking about any event that would seem like a "miracle" to the ordinary person (i.e. any event that doesn't seem to...
Back
Top