Need help understanding this figure on energy levels

  • Thread starter Thread starter hmparticle9
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Quantum mechanics
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around understanding figures related to energy levels in quantum mechanics, specifically from Griffiths' "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics." Participants are examining the relationship between quantum numbers and energy levels, particularly in the context of spherical potentials and Bessel functions.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants are attempting to clarify the meaning of quantum numbers ##N##, ##n##, and ##l## in relation to energy levels depicted in the figures. Questions arise about the validity of the equation ##n = N + l## and its applicability to different potential scenarios.

Discussion Status

Some participants express understanding of the figures and the relationships between the quantum numbers, while others seek clarification on specific aspects, such as the definitions of ##N## and ##l## in the context of the figures. There is an ongoing exploration of how these concepts relate to energy levels without reaching a definitive consensus.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the differences between infinite spherical potentials and Coulomb potentials, indicating that the radial wavefunctions differ significantly. There is also mention of varying editions of the textbook, which may affect access to specific figures.

hmparticle9
Messages
157
Reaction score
26
Homework Statement
I am having trouble interpreting this figure on energy levels
Relevant Equations
$$E_{Nl} = \frac{h^2}{2ma}\beta_{Nl}^2$$

##\beta_{Nl}## is the ##N^{th}## zero of the ##l^{th}## spherical Bessel function.
Screenshot 2025-07-22 11.22.02.webp


This figure is from "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" by Griffiths (3rd edition). It is available to download. It is from page 142. I am hoping the usual people on this site will give me a hand understanding what is going on in the figure.

After the equation (4.50) it says

"It is customary to introduce the principal quantum number, ##n##, which simply orders the allowed energies, starting with 1 for the ground state. (see the figure)"

I still don't understand the figure :(

Here is another figure from page 149, but I found an equation to relate ##N,n,l## in this case: ##n= N +l##

Screenshot 2025-07-22 14.24.59.webp

But it is not the case that ##n= N +l##
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Yael129
Physics news on Phys.org
The figure allows you to associate an energy level of an infinite spherical potential with its appropriate spherical Bessel function.

You have the spherical Bessel function that Griffiths writes as ##j_l(x).##
For a given ##l##, the function has zeros at different values of ##x## that are computed numerically.
Griffiths defines ##\beta_{Nl}## as the ##N##th zero of the ##l##th spherical Bessel function.

Look at the energy ladder that starts at the label ##N=1##. This is the ladder of first zeroes (same value of ##N##) for the Bessel functions ##j_l(x)## where the value of ##l## is shown on the horizontal axis. The first zero of ##l=1## has energy proportional to ##\beta_{11}^2## and is represented by the first tick mark on the vertical scale. The first zero of ##l=2## has energy proportional to ##\beta_{12}^2## and is represented by the second tick mark on the vertical scale. And so on for the rest of the ##N=1## ladder.

Similarly for the ##N=2## ladder and so on. The left vertical axis orders the energy levels in ascending label ##n## which, as Griffiths says, "simply orders the allowed energy levels". You can see for example that the ##n=6## energy level corresponds to the second zero (##N=2##) of ##j_1(x).##

P.S. I own the Second Edition which does not have the figure you posted.
 
hmparticle9 said:
Here is another figure from page 149, but I found an equation to relate ##N,n,l## in this case: ##n= N +l##

View attachment 363568
But it is not the case that ##n= N +l##
There can be no comparison here. The infinite spherical potential is not the same as Coulomb potential. The radial wavefunctions are completely different.
 
@kuruman

Let us first look at the first image and your post #2. Your explanation makes perfect sense :) Thank you again for your help.

The equation 4.50 says ##E_{Nl} = \frac{h^2}{2ma^2}\beta_{Nl}^2##. It all makes sense.

In the case of the second image, what is ##N## and what is ##l##? Is it still the case that ##n## is the principle quantum number, which simply orders the allowed energies?
 
hmparticle9 said:
In the case of the second image, what is ##N## and what is ##l##? Is it still the case that ##n## is the principle quantum number, which simply orders the allowed energies?
I don't have that figure in my edition. I don't know what ##N## represents; read Griffiths and see how he defined it. You can see from the figure that here ##N=n## in other words the ordering of the energy levels is independent of the value of ##l## and ##N## is the same as the principal quantum number. You knew that already (I hope) because the energy levels for the hydrogen atom are given by ##E_n=-\dfrac{13.6~\text{eV}}{n^2}.##
 
Last edited:
I think I get it.

For instance if ##n=2##, then from ##n = N + l## we have either ##N = 2, l = 0## or ##N = 1, l = 1##. These match the bound states on the horizontal line marked ##n= 2##.

If ##n=3## then we have ##N = 1, l = 2##, ##N = 2, l = 1## or ##N = 3, l = 0## Again, these match the bound states on the horizontal line marked ##n=3##

I suffer with a learning difficulty, sometimes I just need to talk about things for it to click.
 
hmparticle9 said:
I suffer with a learning difficulty, sometimes I just need to talk about things for it to click.
We are here to help.
 

Similar threads

Replies
46
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K